The 6 Best Smartwatches of 2025

Best Overall Apple Smartwatch

Apple Watch Series 9

For fans of the Apple ecosystem, there is no better smartwatch than the Apple Watch Series 9. Interestingly, it did not earn top marks in any of our individual testing metrics — in fact, it ranks 5th out of the 10 models we tested in our Health and Battery Life metrics. What the Series 9 offers is exceptional performance overall, especially considering its price point relative to other high-end watches in our lineup. For Apple and iPhone users, high scores across the board translates to seamless integration into your daily routine. As our lead tester, Sentry Kelly, puts it, “Apple standardizes their experience so well. The Watch app [on the Series 9] looks just like the interface you experience on your iPhone and it makes for super intuitive use.”

All three of the Apple Watches run Apple's industry-leading native apps, which makes them functionally comparable to one another. The Series 9 offers fantastic call quality, with one tester noting that it is “basically as good as the iPhone itself”. It's easy to scribble texts on the 1.77 square-inch screen, though we generally prefer to use the efficient voice-to-text function. Don't be thrown off by the relative position of the Series 9 in our Health metric — if you look closely at the scores, you'll notice that the differences among our top competitors are fractions of a point. We assessed the accuracy of the GPS on each watch in two separate tests, and in each instance, this watch proved itself 100% accurate. Thanks to a super bright, 1,260-lux backlit display and minimal glare from an Ion-X glass screen, the Series 9 is one of the best watches we tested for GPS navigation.

Battery Life - Regular Use i	55.6 hr
Charge Time	61 min
Battery Life - GPS i	11.1 hr
Measured Weight i	1.36 oz
Measured Dimensions i	1.78" x 1.50" x 0.52"

It may be surprising that the Series 9 earned our Editors' Choice award, considering that the Ultra 2 scores a few points higher overall. Ultimately, it comes down to price versus performance. The Series 9 delivers 95% of the performance of the Ultra 2 for almost half the price. It also improves upon the more affordable Apple Watch SE in a few key ways. Aside from a 17% larger screen — which is not particularly noticeable when reading emails or texting — our tests prove the Series 9 charges 113% faster than the SE. This is particularly remarkable considering that the 308 mAh battery on the Series 9 also offers an additional 28 hours of estimated battery life (without GPS enabled).

Despite its lightning-fast charging speeds, the smartwatches with the longest battery lives run for 2.5-times longer than the Series 9. This is certainly where the Ultra 2 has the upper hand over the Series 9 — its huge 564 mAh battery provides an additional 54 hours of estimated battery life in regular use, and an additional 6.5 hours if you're using GPS navigation. Apple and Android have drawn hard battle lines, so it is important to point out that the Series 9 is not compatible with anything other than iPhones. Android users: you'll want to look at the Galaxy Watch6, coming up next.

Read more: Apple Watch Series 9 review

Best Overall Android Smartwatch

Samsung Galaxy Watch6

We recognize that many of our awards focus on Apple watches, which is just a reality of the market share among smartwatch users (at least in the United States). But that doesn't mean that there aren't fantastic options for Android users, among which the Samsung Galaxy Watch6 stands out. Similarly to the award-winning Apple Watch Series 9, the Watch6 doesn't shine in any particular metric — it falls short to the Garmin Venu 3 and Google Pixel Watch 2 in our Health metric, and ranks 6th out of 10 models tested for Battery Life. But our side-by-side testing proves its overall value, one that might even make some Apple users jealous. In our tests comparing the Smart Function of these watches, our lead tester noted that the Watch6, “might have the most clearly laid out and all encompassing native app of the entire lineup.”

Android users will feel at-home with the intuitive interface of the Watch6, which includes familiar icons used by other Galaxy and Google devices. Call quality is a notch above the rival Pixel Watch 2 — “It is very loud and fairly clear, with just a slight muffled sound,” one tester remarked, also noting that it didn't exhibit any of the static we noticed from the speaker of the Pixel Watch 2. The 1.77-square inch display on the Watch6 is 47% larger than the face of the Pixel watch, which also makes scribbling or typing texts much easier. Our testers all agree that the haptic bezel is more finicky than a physical, rotating bezel, though this issue can be remedied by upgrading to the Watch6 Classic. All considered, the Watch6 is still the top Android option for communication, especially if you want to use your new smartwatch to conduct business.

Battery Life - Regular Use i	62.5 hr
Charge Time	83 min
Battery Life - GPS i	9.1 hr
Measured Weight i	1.17 oz
Measured Dimensions i	1.69" x 1.75" x 0.51"

The GPS on the Watch6 proved to be 99.17% accurate in our outdoor walk test. Combined with the size and clarity of its Super AMOLED display, it is one of our favorites for GPS navigation. Even though it fell behind other top performers in our Health metric, the Watch6 is still a solid option for active among us who want to closely track their fitness — it really only trails by a fraction of a point. The main shortcoming is a less-than accurate heart rate sensor, which is one reason we prefer the Garmin Venu 3 for tracking our workouts. The other major reason you may opt for the Venu 3 is its vastly superior battery life.

The Watch6 offers an estimated 62.5 hours of battery life (without the GPS enabled). In our opinion, it's not bad if you have to charge your watch once every third day, especially considering that our tests verify it achieves a full charge in 83 minutes and a 50% charge in as little as 30 minutes. In contrast, the Venu 3 runs for a remarkable 143 hours without the GPS enabled — particularly remarkable considering that these two watches have approximately the same size battery. If you regularly go off-grid or you are particularly focused on tracking your fitness, go with the Venu 3. If you simply want your new smartwatch to sync to the rhythms of your work-life balance, then we're going to choose the Watch6 every time.

Read more: Samsung Galaxy Watch6 review

Best Buy in Smartwatches

Apple Watch SE

The Apple Watch SE presents an extraordinary value among all of the smartwatches in our lineup, particularly so when you compare it side-by-side with the premium Apple Watches we tested. Its iOS interface runs the same native apps — Apple Watch, Health, and Fitness — as the Series 9 and Ultra 2, which means that all three watches are functionally equivalent, as far as apps go. The value of the SE becomes even more apparent when you look closely at our two most important test metrics, Smart Function and Health, which comprise 70% of a product's overall score. In these tests, the SE actually scores a fraction (0.2 points) higher than the Editors' Choice award-winning Series 9, and only 0.1 point behind the top-end Ultra 2. These results are razor thin, yet it highlights the fact that the more affordable SE easily hangs with its more expensive siblings in the most meaningful ways.

Even though they feature the same screen (an OLED display covered by Ion-X glass), the 1.51-square inch screen on the SE is 17% smaller than the Series 9. “The only reason I scored these watches differently is because having a larger screen makes texting and scribbling on the watch keyboard slightly easier,” Sentry, our lead tester, noted. While this gives the Series 9 a slight advantage in our Smart Function tests, the sensors on the SE proved to be a touch more accurate in our fitness tests. The GPS tracking on the SE isn't quite as accurate, which is why we prefer the Series 9 for navigation. However, in our step counter test the SE proved to be 98.98% accurate compared to the 96.84% accuracy of the Series 9. It may seem like we're splitting hairs here, and we are. The point of this direct comparison is that the SE performs as well or better than the Series 9, yet it lists for 2/3 of the price. That's the definition of exceptional value in our book.

Battery Life - Regular Use i	27.8 hr
Charge Time	125 min
Battery Life - GPS i	12.5 hr
Measured Weight i	1.18 oz
Measured Dimensions i	1.75" x 1.50" x 0.52"

So then where does the SE fall behind the other two Apple Watches? In our Battery Life tests. As you move up in price point, each subsequent watch includes a larger battery, which directly influences run time. Our tests show that with regular use (without GPS enabled) the Ultra 2 will run for an estimated 100 hours, the Series 9 for nearly 56 hours, and the SE for not quite 28 hours. However, the more remarkable difference is actually in charge time. Our charging test proved that the SE charges 43% slower than the Ultra 2 and 53% slower than the Series 9. To put that into a real-world context, in the same 61 minutes that it took to charge the SE to 56%, the Series 9 achieved 100% charge. This is certainly the main drawback to the SE — although considering the savings, we're willing to charge our new smartwatch every day.

There are a few other notable upgrades in the Apple Watches as you move up in price point. Both the Series 9 and the Ultra 2 are built with Apple's S9 SiP chip — a more refined and slightly faster dual-core processor — and they double the storage capacity with a 64 GB memory card. You also gain an electrical heart sensor in addition to the optical sensor, which enables access to the electrocardiogram (ECG) app. But ultimately, these are premium features that are not necessarily proportional to the increase in price. On the other hand, the SE delivers 97% of the performance of the Series 9 for a fraction of the cost. For any dedicated iPhone user, the SE is a reasonably affordable smartwatch that offers exceptional performance relative to its price point.

Read more: Apple Watch SE gen 2 review

Best Buy Under $100

Amazfit BIP 5

If you are seeking an extremely budget-friendly entry into the world of smartwatches, then the Amazfit BIP 5 is a compelling choice. It offers intuitive proprietary apps and third party apps to extend basic functions and add personalization. This model handles phone calls well, although texting is limited to automated responses. It is also a capable health monitoring and fitness tracking device, even though our testers did have issues with the GPS establishing connections, as well as GPS accuracy.

Battery Life - Regular Use i	33.3 hr
Charge Time	110 min
Battery Life - GPS i	6.3 hr
Measured Weight i	0.93 oz
Measured Dimensions i	1.81" x 1.50" x 0.50"

While it may not deliver the more mature experience or expansive ecosystem of apps like what is present in the Apple Store or Google Play Store, you'll find the majority of your app needs met, and a premium app option offers greater features and functions. Its large display and battery life also can't outshine or outlast the most premium models we tested, but you would be hard-pressed to find a better performing or more capable smartwatch at the price point. If you are willing and able to spend more, you can get better all-around performance from the Apple Watch SE gen 2 or the Samsung Galaxy Watch6.

Read more: Amazfit BIP 5 review

The Premium Apple Watch

Apple Watch Ultra 2

The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is the premier option in the Apple Watch line, and our comparison tests prove that it is truly an exceptional smartwatch. Even though it runs the same native apps as the iOS-powered Series 9 and SE, a few premium upgrades essentially supercharge the Ultra 2. Its huge, 1.83-square-inch display is 4% larger than the rival Series 9, and our luminosity tests prove that it is 114% brighter. This not only offers uncommon clarity, even in direct sunlight, but the slightly larger screen gives the Ultra 2 a notable edge when scribbling texts or typing on its full-sized (albeit tiny) keyboard. Even though our charging test proves the Series 9 charges 20% faster than the Ultra 2, the enormous 564 mAh battery on the Ultra 2 offers an additional 54 hours of estimated battery life (without GPS enabled).

The Ultra 2 is the only Apple Watch in our lineup that has been tested to a MIL-STD 810H standard. Combined with its three-microphone array and wind noise mitigation, call quality is so excellent with this watch that you could theoretically take calls while climbing a mountain at 15,000 feet. It is also rated for recreational SCUBA diving (EN 13319) and thus includes a depth gauge up to 40 meters (130 feet). The dual-frequency GPS is also remarkably accurate — it is one of very few watches to earn perfect scores in our three GPS tests.

Battery Life - Regular Use i	100.0 hr
Charge Time	135 min
Battery Life - GPS i	16.7 hr
Measured Weight i	2.18 oz
Measured Dimensions i	1.94" x 1.70" x 0.57"

So the question is: do you really need a smartwatch as exceptional as the Ultra 2? Our testers all agree that “most of the additional features on the Ultra 2 are overkill for most people.” In almost every meaningful way, the Series 9 directly rivals the more premium option — it essentially offers 95% of the performance for nearly half the price. The main advantage of the Ultra 2 is the extra battery life, which is certainly an advantage if you're regularly going off-grid. Even though the quality of the OLED display on the SE can't quite compare with the crisp display on the Ultra 2, in our outdoor visibility tests (where a bright screen counts the most), the differences were negligible.

For us, the question comes down to the price tag. The Ultra 2 is not just a purchase, but a small investment. You gain the best Apple has to offer in terms of wearable communication, display quality, and battery life. Like the display of the Samsung Watch6, the sapphire crystal screen surface just cannot be beat in terms of durability. To test the difference between this surface and the more popular Gorilla Glass, our lead tester wore two watches to the climbing gym. By the end of the session, the Gorilla Glass had a few fresh scratches while the Ultra 2 still appeared brand new. If you demand this type of rugged functionality, then this watch may well be worth it. For most of us, we'll opt for the Series 9.

Read more: Apple Watch Ultra 2 review

Top Pick for Health and Fitness

Garmin Venu 3

Water Resistance: Up to 50m | NFC: Yes, Garmin Pay

For adventurous types who need their battery to last for many days, there is no better option than the Garmin Venu 3. This agnostic smartwatch is compatible with Apple and Android phones, and we estimated its battery life at an incredible 143 hours. It can even run for an impressive 20 hours with GPS turned on, more than 3 hours longer than the Ultra 2. Its health-related sensors are only rivaled by the Pixel Watch 2, though the Venu 3 far outstrips that other watch when it comes to tracking your workouts, with ample customization for already well-tuned activity-specific modes. Whether you are interested in metrics for climbing, stand-up paddleboarding, snowshoeing, or pickleball, you'll find not only the workout type to match your fitness routine but also a wealth of trackable data tailored to your specific sport.

Battery Life - Regular Use i	142.9 hr
Charge Time	83 min
Battery Life - GPS i	20.0 hr
Measured Weight i	1.06 oz
Measured Dimensions i	1.77" x 1.77" x 0.53"

The tradeoff for fitness-focused functionality is that the Venu 3 doesn't offer nearly as mature of an app ecosystem as system-built watches like the Apple Series 9 or Galaxy Watch6, or even the Pixel Watch 2. The call clarity is exceptional (at least for the caller), though it lacks basic texting functions. You can only preview texts, and only Android users will be able to type with an on-screen keyboard. The Venu 3 also doesn't include a native mapping feature, which is particularly alarming for a smartwatch built by a manufacturer who has staked their claim on GPS devices. This addition would be a boon to the native Garmin app, especially considering that the display quality is particularly good, especially for a watch with a more basic AMOLED display and Gorilla Glass screen. Our test team noted that during outdoor activity, the screen on the Venu 3 has “a nice contrast, with minimal glare,” giving adventurous types one more reason to consider this sporty smartwatch.

Read more: Garmin Venu 3 review

Compare Products

Compare select up to 5 products to compare

	Score	Product	Price
	90	Apple Watch Ultra 2 The Premium Apple Watch	$799
	85	Apple Watch Series 9 Best Overall Apple Smartwatch	$429
	83	Samsung Galaxy Watch6 Best Overall Android Smartwatch	$330
	82	Apple Watch SE Best Buy in Smartwatches	$279
	77	Garmin Venu 3 Top Pick for Health and Fitness	$450
	77	Google Pixel Watch 2	$350
	73	Mobvoi TicWatch Pro 5	$350
	59	Fitbit Versa 4	$230
	57	Fitbit Sense 2	$300
	50	Amazfit BIP 5 Best Buy Under $100	$90

How We Test Smartwatches

After researching top models, then purchasing only the most promising smartwatches, we evaluated every aspect and conducted rigorous side-by-side tests and assessments to validate their claimed merits. We tested smart functions, which includes proprietary apps and app quality, app ecosystems, third-party app availability, call quality, texting abilities, and native GPS mapping. We also evaluated health monitoring and fitness tracking that included validating sensor accuracy and explored workout types and data quality. Our team measured display quality through evaluation as well as inhouse testing for brightness and glass hardness. Finally, our team pushed every model to the limit of battery life under two typical real-world scenarios, and also recorded recharging rates. Keep reading to learn how each smartwatch measures up in each of these key metrics.

Our smartwatch testing is divided across four rating metrics:

• Smart Functions (40% of overall score weighting)

• Health (30% weighting)

• Battery Life (20% weighting)

• Display (10% weighting)

Why Trust GearLab

We began with copious amounts of product research to determine which watches were the most intriguing. We then purchased those models at full price. We never accept free units to review, so we have no financial incentive to pick one product over another. For years, our smartwatch testing process has been conducted and advanced by Jessica Ricoscente . Jessica's experience in product development has been invaluable to our smartwatch testing process. She has brought new and improved methods to make sure our reviews are the best. Leading the charge, and revamping our in-house testing process to produce the highest quality data is in-house tester Sentry Kelly. Sentry's incredible attention to detail and a strong passion for capturing and interrogating data provided our writer for this review, Ben Hickok with every metric and datapoint needed to confidently share findings in a relatable way. Ben is an avid sportsman, adventurer, and tech professional, and brings a discerning eye to the analysis of the datasets produced by the extensive work of our in-house test team.

Analysis and Test Results

Before we dive into the nitty-gritty details of how these watches performed in our tests, we want to take a moment to discuss how we scored these products. We weighted each metric proportionally as it relates to overall performance. For example, we're willing to sacrifice a bit in terms of display quality as long as a smartwatch performs smart functions well.

It is also important to point out that each product is scored relative to one another. Since we chose only to test the best smartwatches on the market, a low score doesn't mean that a certain model is not worthy of your consideration. It simply means that smartwatch performed poorly relative to the competition in a particular test or metric. By testing and ranking these smartwatches side-by-side, we can better highlight which products perform well in some ways or falter in others. This will help you better understand their strengths and weaknesses and how these fit into the context of their overall performance.

What's the Best Value?

When comparing smartwatches, there are noticeable design improvements as you move up in price, and you tend to get what you pay for. That said, there also seems to be a price point where value is maximized — above that point, you are simply paying a premium on upgrades that don't necessarily advance overall performance.

Why Isn't the Ultra 2 the Best Overall Smartwatch?

The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is the best example of this. It is, without a doubt, an exceptional smartwatch. However, you'll have to pay an arm and a leg for its additional features, most of which don't amount to any discernible difference in performance. You can see in the Price vs. Performance Comparison chart, above, that it is so much more expensive than the other top-performers, yet its overall performance score is not much higher.

With the Ultra 2, you gain an ultra-crisp, ultra-durable sapphire crystal screen and an extra 54 hours of battery life (without the GPS enabled). Since the screen on the Series 9 proved plenty durable in our tests and it still runs for an estimated 56 hours, we're more than happy with those small tradeoffs considering the savings.

The Premium Ultra 2 vs. the Budget SE

The Ultra 2 is Apple's premier model, incorporating the best design features and technology available for smartwatches. But is the nearly $800 price tag worth it? In most ways, our tests prove that no, it's not. Let's compare it directly to the SE, Apple's sub-$300 model, to better understand how we came to this conclusion.

Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Apple Watch SE

Product	Smart Function	Health	Battery Life	Display
Apple Ultra 2	9.5	8.5	8.3	9.6
Apple SE	9.3	8.6	5.7	7.7

The SE runs on the same native apps as the Ultra 2 — Apple Watch, Health, and Fitness — so the smart functions are identical. The SE lacks a few of the more advanced sensors included on the Ultra 2, but we don't miss the temperature sensor or the depth gauge (though we admit, we're not regularly SCUBA diving). The microphone on the Ultra 2 mitigates wind noise, but unless you're taking business calls from the top of a mountain, we didn't notice any difference in any normal settings.

Battery Life

Product	Regular Use	GPS Turned On
Apple Ultra 2	100	16.7
Apple SE	27.8	12.5

The greatest difference between the two is battery life. We don't see much purpose in the always-on display of the Ultra 2 — even the SE turns on when you raise your wrist to check the time. There's no arguing that the estimated 100 hours of battery life with the Ultra 2 (without the GPS enabled) far outstrips the 28-hour battery life of the SE. To be fair, however, you can save a lot of money if you're simply willing to plug in your watch every night.

Display Quality

Product	Screen Brightness	Outdoor Visibility
Apple Ultra 2	9.5	9.8
Apple SE	7.1	9

The Ultra 2 offers a higher quality display and a screen that's 21% larger than that of the SE. Light meter measurements also proved that the screen on the Ultra 2 is technically 66% brighter than the screen on the SE. But when it came time to judge visibility outdoors — where screen brightness makes the most difference — the two watches were analogous. Our lead tester even made the same note with each model, “a beautiful display outdoors; very little reflection and very easy to read.”

Our tests prove that functionally, the only difference between these two watches is the larger screen on the Ultra 2. Unless your lifestyle demands longer runtimes between charges, given the choice of the two, we would opt for the much more affordable SE.

Inexpensive, Just Not All That "Smart"

We also recognize that we're talking about the “incredible” value of watches that cost many hundreds of dollars. For folks shopping on a particularly tight budget — or folks looking for a regret-free forway into smartwatches — we want to highlight the Amazfit BIP 5 as the best option under $100.

In terms of smart function, it isn't going to go head-to-head with any premium models we tested. However, the BIP 5 particularly impressed our testers with its seamless connectivity to either Apple or Android phones and for its call clarity. It also performed especially well in our step counter test, with an accuracy on-par with the Apple SE.

Smart Function

If a watch is going to be a “smartwatch”, then it must easily and efficiently run a host of smart functions. The term “smart function” is practically synonymous with how well a phone or watch can run apps. First and foremost, we closely compared the utility of the native apps that come pre-installed alongside the availability and quality of third-party apps. We used them throughout our everyday lives at work, at home, and at play to rank them side-by-side — higher scores mean that apps are generally more useful and easier to use.

App Performance

Product	Proprietary Apps	Third Party Apps
Apple Ultra 2	8	10
Apple Series 9	8	9.8
Apple SE	8	9.5
Galaxy Watch S6	9	8.5
Pixel Watch 2	6	8.5
TicWatch Pro 5	6	8.5
Garmin Venu 3	8	6
Amazfit BIP 5	7	5
Fitbit Sense 2	6	1
Fitbit Versa 4	6	1

The Apple Watch Ultra 2, Series 9, and SE stacked the podium. Savvy readers will notice that even though proprietary app performance is identical, our experience using third party apps varied ever so slightly. These differences in our scoring are based on the additional sensors you gain as you step up in price point, which allows for compatibility with more third-party apps. For example, the optical heart rate sensor on the Series 9 and Ultra 2 mean that these watches can record an ECG (electrocardiogram), while the standard sensor on the SE can only sense irregular heart rhythms. Although the Series 9 and Ultra 2 are both rated as water resistant up to 50 meters, only the Ultra 2 is rated as a dive watch, so it is the only one that has access to Apple's Oceanic diving app.

We do have a minor grievance with the fact that the premium Apple One apps, like Fitness+, live behind a paywall. Similar to the Fitbit Premium paywall on the Fitbit Sense 2 and Google Pixel Watch 2 (Google acquired Fitbit in 2021), you have to pay a subscription fee to access their training programs. The subscription fee is not insignificant and should factor into how you look at product value, especially if you'd like to tap into the power of these smartwatches for your fitness routine. The Galaxy Watch6 and Garmin Venu 3, on the other hand, don't hide any functionality behind a paywall.

The Samsung Health app on the Watch6 is not only totally free, but offers a nicely laid out dashboard that feels very similar to the Garmin Connect health app on the Venu 3. However, Garmin Connect offers fitness-specific options that far surpass those offered by the Samsung Health, Apple Health, and Fitbit apps. This alone makes the Venu 3 a superior choice for folks focused on using their smartwatch to track their workouts. Otherwise, the native Garmin IQ app and app store feel fairly basic, and the quality of third-party apps available is well behind those offered in the Apple or Google stores.

Our testers — even those used to their personal iPhones — found that the WearOS-based native apps on the Galaxy Watch6 and Pixel Watch 2 were slightly easier to navigate than iOS. Although the third-party apps available on Google Play sometimes felt a bit more clunky compared to those through the Apple Store, both stores are commensurate with third-party app availability. Our main concern with the Pixel Watch 2, as compared directly to the Watch6, is that we regularly ran into connectivity issues with the native Google Pixel Watch app. Whenever it disconnected, we had to factory reset the watch to repair the app, which cleared all settings and saved activities from the device. As you can imagine, this was very annoying.

It's worth noting that many of the watches we tested run a version of WearOS at their core, including the TicWatch Pro 5 — that's why this watch scores on-par with the Watch6 and Pixel Watch 2 regarding third-party app capability. Interestingly, and despite Google's acquisition of Fitbit, neither the Sense 2 nor the Versa 4 have the ability to connect to the Google Play store, which severely limits their overall smart function. Even the budget-friendly Amazfit BIP 5 is able to connect to a “mini” app store through its native Zepp app, which is why it outscores either of the Fitbit watches. However, it's important to note that the quality of those apps are subpar relative to any offered in the Apple App Store or on Google Play.

It seems that even with our smartphones, call and text performance is secondary to app performance these days. Yet, it's still a critical feature of smartwatches, especially if you are hoping to essentially shift full functionality from your pocket to your wrist. It's no surprise that Apple and Samsung, as the top smartphone manufacturers in the United States, as well as Google have produced smartwatches that are all highly capable of making phone calls or sending texts. We tested the calling capabilities of these smartwatches by simply making phone calls to one another. For texts, we assessed keyboard size and typing accuracy, and awarded points for any additional features like talk-to-text, draw to text, or the ability to set auto replies.

Call and Text Performance

Product	Phone Calls	Text
Apple Ultra 2	9	10
Apple Series 9	9	9.9
Apple SE	9	9.8
Galaxy Watch S6	8.5	9
Pixel Watch 2	8	9
Garmin Venu 3	8	6
TicWatch Pro 5	5.5	8
Fitbit Sense 2	5	4
Fitbit Versa 4	5	4
Amazfit BIP 5	7	1

All of the Apple watches performed similarly to one another, which is to say, basically as good as the iPhone itself. The volume on every Apple watch was akin to having your phone on speaker mode. On the receiving end, our testers only noted a slight echo behind otherwise excellent call clarity. All three models we tested support Apple's unique Double Tap feature, which feels like a magical way to answer phone calls, but not all that necessary. For texting, the scores vary only slightly based on the size of the screen. Even though the keyboard is tiny, it's surprisingly accurate, especially on the slightly bigger screen of the Ultra 2. The talk-to-text feature on all three watches works wonderfully, and although the Scribble feature is slow to use, it is effective and comes in handy in a crowded area where you can't dictate a text.

Call clarity on the receiving end the of the Watch6 and the Pixel Watch 2 is similar to the Apple watches — essentially as clear as a normal phone, just with a slight echo. Testers noted that compared to the speaker on the Series 9, the sound resonating from the Watch6 is slightly muffled and that there is a modest amount of static around a voice emanating from the Pixel Watch 2. The face of the Pixel 2 is 10% smaller than the face of the Series 9, which makes a noticeable difference trying to dial a number on an already tiny dialpad. When it comes to texting, our testers put the Pixel Watch 2 and Galaxy Watch6 on par with any of the Apple watches. Both Android watches include a Handwriting feature — which is similar to Apple's Scribble — as well as an accurate talk-to-text. However, our testers noticed that the dictation is not quite as quick on the Pixel Watch 2.

The watch speaker on the Venu 3 sounds excellent — one tester was, “shocked by how clearly the voice is coming through” — though words occasionally cut out on the receiving end. It's frustrating for iPhone users that the Garmin texting app only includes a keyboard when connected to Android, and the Venu 3 doesn't include the super-handy talk-to-text feature. Even though our experience with this Garmin watch was a bit of a mixed bag, our testers were more thrown off by the discrepancy between calling and texting with the Amazfit BIP 5. We were impressed with the call clarity on this budget smartwatch, with only slightly muffled audio that was nearly on par with the Watch6. But without a keyboard or voice-to-text capability, sending a text with the BIP 5 is impossible beyond automated responses.

In our humble opinion, having a GPS-powered map in your pocket or on your wrist is a modern marvel. Depending on the OS, we used either Apple or Google Maps to navigate through our tests. It should come as no surprise that the Apple- and Google-powered watches seamlessly integrate with their native mapping apps. One of the greatest disappointments of this test was discovering that the Venu 3 includes no native mapping feature. You can work around this by getting map notifications that tell you directions, but we certainly felt let down by a company that specializes in GPS systems.

All three Apple Watches will integrate with Google Maps and the Watch6 will integrate with Apple Maps. However, the Pixel Watch 2 and TicWatch Pro 5, which performed very similarly in our tests, will not integrate with Apple Maps. Considering that the screen size and display quality on the Watch6 outstrip the Pixel 2 in both regards, we would much rather use it for following directions. As one tester succinctly put it, “Of the Android-style watches, the Watch6 is my favorite for mapping.”

After testing and assessing the three main pillars of functionality — native app and third-party app performance, call and text capabilities, and ease of GPS navigation — we tallied the scores and ranked all of these smartwatches in this metric. While some watches excelled or fell short in certain tests, those with higher scores overall are likely to suit your daily needs.

Health

As technology continues to evolve, smartwatches and fitness trackers are slowly becoming one in the same — although a new smartwatch will generally set you back significantly more than the best fitness tracker. Monitoring the daily rhythms of health, fitness, and general well-being can mean different things for different people. But for many, it comes down to simply counting steps.

Step Accuracy

Product	Outdoor Walk	Treadmill Walk	Step Counter	GPS Track
Galaxy Watch S6	9.5	6.4	9.4	9.1
Pixel Watch 2	9.5	6.1	9.5	8.8
Garmin Venu 3	9.5	5.8	9.0	9.1
Apple Ultra 2	9.5	6.4	7.3	9.5
Apple Series 9	9.5	6.4	6.4	9.5
Apple SE	9.5	5.8	8.9	7.4
Fitbit Versa 4	9	7.2	9.1	6.1
Fitbit Sense 2	9	8.0	5.0	9.1
TicWatch Pro 5	9.5	5.0	5.6	8.6
Amazfit BIP 5	3.0	6.1	8.7	4.0

To assess the accuracy, we first used a measuring wheel to walk a 1/2-mile outdoor track and noted the difference of the distance measured by the watch GPS. At the same, we used a good old-fashioned step counter to tick off our actual steps versus those tracked by the watch. As it turned out, there was very little difference between most of these watches in our outdoor walk test. The Fitbit Sense 2 exhibited the greatest absolute difference between actual and measured distance — and even that was a difference of only 0.07 mile — while the Watch6, the most accurate watch overall, was right on the mark.

The results of our step counter test were much more variable. We were a bit puzzled that the otherwise accurate Fitbit Sense 2 undershot the actual step count by an average of 43 steps, while the Versa 4 was accurate to within 99.2%. But what was even more surprising was that some of the watches that performed highest overall fell short in this particular test. We were astounded that the Apple Series 9 missed the mark by an average of 31 steps, and the Ultra 2 by an average of 24 steps. These discrepancies won't make or break your fitness routine, but it was interesting to note that the sensor on the Apple SE proved more accurate than its more expensive cousins, precise to within 98.98% of our actual step count.

Then we performed essentially the same test inside on a treadmill, noting the differences between measured distance on the treadmill and watch, and any differences on the step counter. The overall mediocre scores in this test highlight the importance of the internal GPS for validating and correcting the distances that these smartwatches record. Fortunately, all of the highest-rated watches — with the notable exception of the Pixel Watch 2, which runs the Fitbit fitness app — allow you to enter data from the treadmill to calibrate and improve measurements. Even though you also cannot adjust data on the Fitbit Versa 4 and Sense 2, it seems like their sensors are best tuned to treadmill walking as these two watches scored the best in this particular test.

We also mapped out a route using Garmin Connect and followed it with each watch. We then plugged this data into the DCR Analyzer to help us compare the track overlays, noting the absolute difference in distance measured and any deviations in the mapped GPS track. While the Apple SE proved itself with a more accurate step counter, the more premium Series 9 offers superior GPS tracking. While the Watch6 and Garmin Venu 3 both impressed us with their GPS accuracy — which was on par with the premium Apple Watches — only the Venu 3 continued to excel when we moved onto testing the accuracy of the heart rate monitor.

Our test team wore each smartwatch along with a Polar heart rate sensor, widely regarded as the gold standard of HR monitoring. We again leaned on the DC Analyzer to print out a second-by-second comparison of the HR data we recorded. While the watches that scored highest overall in our Health metric were accurate to within 0.5 beats per minute, the Watch 6 was an outlier, with an average difference of 2.3 BPM. Stabilization of your heart rate after a strenuous effort is a key metric for assessing cardiovascular fitness, and the Watch6 did a particularly poor job of picking up on these rapid changes.

While the Garmin Venu 3 performed well across all health-related tests, it really set itself apart from the rest of our lineup with the exceptional Garmin Connect app. Even though other top-scoring models like the Series 9 and Watch6 may offer a wider variety of activity-specific modes, none quite compare to the quality of those on the Venu 3. The 60+ modes included in Garmin Connect are much more customizable, offering a seemingly infinite number of additional data fields. The more niche the sport, the more detailed the data — for example, the climbing mode tracks total number of routes alongside climbing and resting time, as well as average HR zone and total calories used. It also allows you to edit all of your workout stats in the Garmin Connect app on your phone or computer. The depth of the analytics available and overall accuracy of its sensors make the Venu 3 the most advanced fitness watch on the market.

We tallied the scores from all of our tests to come up with an overall Health score. Considering that most people care most about the accuracy of the distance tracker and step counter, those four tests account for 60% of our overall score. The accuracy of the HR monitor is important — especially for folks living with a heart condition — and accounts for 30% of the overall score, while the availability and quality of workout modes makes up the remaining 10%.

Battery Life

You simply want a smartwatch with the best battery life — less down time charging means you can get more done with your day. But it's important to slow down for a moment to recognize how battery life relates to how we use a smartwatch in our daily routine. Many people turn to their smartwatches to help with navigation, but using the GPS saps your battery much more quickly than regular use without the GPS turned on. We tested normal battery drain for a typical 10-hour work day — using the watch for tasks like sending texts, checking email, and changing our music — and we specifically did not track a workout or use the GPS during this test. We used the difference in battery life to figure out the drain per hour, which then allowed us to calculate the estimated battery life.

Comparing the results between brands, it's interesting to note that battery drain during regular use does not necessarily correlate with battery size. For example, we estimated that the 160 mAh battery on the Fitbit Versa 4 can run for almost 143 hours of regular use. Whereas the 564 mAh battery on the Apple Ultra 2, which is 3.5 times larger, is only estimated to run for 100 hours. It seems like normal battery life corresponds more with the functionality of a smartwatch. If you consider that apps — both smart function and health-related apps — sap the most power, then it makes sense that the much less capable Versa 4 will run for much longer than the high-performance Ultra 2.

However, when we compared all three Apple watches side-by-side — all of which demonstrated nearly identical performances in our Smart Function and Health tests — it was easier to see a direct correlation between battery size and battery life. The battery in the Ultra 2 is 83% larger than the one in the Series 9, so it's no surprise that you gain an estimated 54 hours of additional battery life with the Ultra 2. What is surprising is that the battery in the Series 9 is only 4% larger than the one in the SE, yet you double the estimated battery life by upgrading to the Series 9. Once you turn the GPS on, however, the Series 9 and SE perform practically the same.

We tested the battery drain with GPS turned on using a more standardized procedure. Our testers mapped out a one-hour hiking loop and used the watch GPS to navigate it. We then noted the difference in battery life and again used that figure to calculate the estimated battery life. The Garmin Venu 3 led these tests with an impressive 20 hours of GPS navigation and an even more inspiring 143 hours with the GPS disabled. For you backcountry travelers, that's nearly six days worth of battery life!

Battery Life

Product	Regular Use	GPS Turned On
Garmin Venu 3	142.9	20
Fitbit Versa 4	142.9	11.1
Fitbit Sense 2	125	8.3
Apple Ultra 2	100	16.7
TicWatch Pro 5	83.3	9.1
Galaxy Watch S6	62.5	9.1
Apple Series 9	55.6	11.1
Pixel Watch 2	34.5	10
Apple SE	27.8	12.5
Amazfit BIP 5	33.3	6.3

For our charging test, we tracked the progress of each watch in five-minute intervals, which allowed us to generate the detailed charge curve below. We eliminated the variation in battery size by dividing the battery size by the charging time, which also gave us a standardized charge rate. Even though Garmin doesn't list the battery capacity specifically, by comparing it to similarly performing models in our charging and discharging tests — like the Galaxy Watch6 — we estimate that the battery capacity of the Venu 3 is probably around 425 mAh.

Both the Watch6 and Venu 3 are capable of quick-charging to just above 50% battery life in as little as 35 minutes. Even though the Pixel Watch 2 charges faster than either of these two — achieving a 67% charge in 35 minutes — it actually has a slower charging rate because its battery size is only 306 mAh. The similarly sized battery on the Series 9 was the fastest to charge in our test, reaching 72% charge in 35 minutes and 100% charge in just over an hour. It's also worth noting that the comparably sized battery on the SE took twice as long to charge when compared directly against the Series 9.

Perhaps the most surprising performance came from the TicWatch Pro 5, which earned the third highest Battery Life score overall. Compared to the already quick-charging Series 9, this smartwatch actually charges 78% faster. Even though the 628 mAh battery in the Pro 5 is more than double the size of the 308 mAh battery in the Series 9, the Pro 5 only took nine more minutes to fully charge. With a larger battery, the estimated battery life of the Pro 5 is also 27 hours more than the Series 9, at least under normal use conditions.

Some watches are excellent quick-charging options, while others are great for longer hauls between charges. But those watches that score highest in our overall Battery Life rating offer a nice balance of those two key factors.

Display

Smart features and fitness tracking are useless if you can't see the information being shown on your watch display. All of these smartwatches are expensive and you want to be sure that the screens are durable enough to stand up to the scratches and scuffs that come with everyday wear. We used a Mohs' Hardness Kit to test the scratch resistance of every smartwatch in our lineup.

Since most of us aren't familiar with mineral hardness, let's put the results from this nifty test into context using a more common material. Many of the watches we tested use Corning Gorilla Glass — a seven on the Mohs Scale — which is equivalent to hardened steel, like the kind used to make automotive parts. The Ion-X glass used on the Apple SE and Series 9 is commonly used to make high-end screen protectors, and it is even a bit more scratch resistant than Gorilla Glass.

As a real-world comparison of durability, our lead tester took the Garmin Venu 3 and Apple Ultra 2 to the climbing gym. At the end of his session, the Gorilla Glass on the Venu 3 had a few visible scratches, while the sapphire crystal display of the Ultra 2 still appeared brand new.

Sapphire (a gem variety of the mineral corundum) scores a 9 on the Mohs Hardness Scale, which aligns perfectly with the scratch resistance score of the Ultra 2. Interestingly, our testers produced the same faint scratch with a #8 pen on the sapphire crystal display of the Watch6 — we performed the test multiple times just to make sure. Whatever the reason behind these results, for our practical purposes the displays on the Ultra 2 and Watch6 are directly comparable for their scratch resistance and overall display quality.

For our next test, we used a light meter to measure screen brightness. Often the brightest screen was in flashlight mode, a common native app that cranks up the brightness behind a white screen. But on some models, namely the two Fitbit watches and the Garmin Venu 3, a bright background actually produced the highest lux reading. To provide some context for these numbers, 150 lux — the lowest score overall, exhibited by the Venu 3 — is the recommended level of lighting for a kitchen or a work area.

Screen Brightness

Product	Lux Reading
Apple Ultra 2	2700
Apple Series 9	1260
Apple SE	920
Galaxy Watch S6	815
Pixel Watch 2	751
TicWatch Pro 5	542
Fitbit Versa 4	295
Fitbit Sense 2	267
Amazfit BIP 5	245
Garmin Venu 3	150

All three Apple models share the same high-quality, LTPO OLED display, but their screen surfaces are different. Sapphire crystal is more dense than Ion-X glass, which is one reason why the Ultra 2 is built with an ultra-bright, 2700-lux (859-nit) backlit display. Even if their screens are technically not as bright, the backlight on the Series 9 and SE just doesn't need to be as powerful as the one on the Ultra 2 to shine through the lighter-density Ion-X glass.

Even though our light meter test revealed objective differences in screen brightness, we guarantee that all of the smartwatches we tested are bright enough to use indoors. However, these results don't necessarily correlate to outdoor visibility, where screen brightness makes the most difference. We compared all of these watches side-by-side on a bright, sunny day, and noted how differences in glare, screen brightness, color, and contrast affected our ability to read the screen.

We put more scoring weight behind outdoor visibility than our light meter test, and the Galaxy Watch6 is the best example of why. It may pale in comparison to the screen brightness of the Ultra 2, but its display quality outdoors proves that the 815 lux backlight on the Watch6 is more than powerful enough to shine through a sapphire crystal display. The always-on, Super AMOLED display is vibrant, and a class-leading 480x480 screen resolution means that text on the Watch6 is crisp and always easy-to-read.

If you just took them at a glance, the results from our screen brightness test would be even more misleading for the Garmin Venu 3. AMOLED displays, like the one on the Venu 3 and the Watch6, are already brighter and produce more vibrant colors than the OLED displays used in Apple watches. But the Gorilla Glass on the Venu 3 is also 40% less dense than the sapphire crystal surface of the Watch6. This means that the backlight can produce 82% less light, yet still result in an easy readable watch. (We figure that the minimal power draw of the screen on the Venu 3 also likely contributes to its exceptional battery life.) So for adventurous types who have already homed in on this smartwatch, have no fear — the Venu 3 has a beautiful display, especially under sunny skies.

The main difference between the Apple watches is the size of their screens, which accounts for the slight variation in scoring their overall display quality. While the display on the Ultra 2 is only 4% larger than the display on the Series 9, it is 21% larger than the display on the SE. Even though their screen materials and display size differ, the result is the same — all three Apple models are easy to read outdoors.

Display Quality

Product	Screen Brightness	Outdoor Visibility
Apple Ultra 2	9.5	9.8
Galaxy Watch S6	6.9	10
Apple Series 9	7.5	9.3
Apple SE	7.1	9
Pixel Watch 2	6.8	8
Garmin Venu 3	6.0	7
Fitbit Sense 2	6.2	6
Fitbit Versa 4	6.2	6
TicWatch Pro 5	6.5	4
Amazfit BIP 5	6.1	4

How to Pick the Best Smartwatch

Taking the leap to invest in a smartwatch can be daunting. These little tech essentials are expensive, and we understand that you want to be confident in choosing the perfect one. Our in-depth buying advice article walks you through the overall decision making process step by step. Here we lay out four of those key considerations which you can use as guiding principles to help simplify your selection.

Match Smart Functions to Your Use

Not all smartwatches are as smart as one another. If you want to use your smartwatch for work — namely, for phone calls, texting, and email — then you want to focus on the models that score highly in our Smart Function metric. In the business context, call quality matters and smart functions like talk-to-text can greatly improve your workflow. Your daily routine demands a more intelligent, capable smartwatch than somebody who simply wants to monitor their heart rate, the weather, and the time. Consider it an investment in your performance, and as such, you'll want to match key aspects of a watch's functionality to your needs.

Do You Want to Replace Your Fitness Tracker?

If you would also like to wear a smartwatch to track your workouts, then you'll want to focus on our Health metric. The watches that score highest in these tests offer the most robust health and fitness features and functions. Many smartwatches include similar sensors, but our tests show that some are much more accurate than others. While some watches we tested only provide basic fitness trackers, others have the ability to collect an impressive amount of data and proved themselves as powerful two-in-one wearables.

How Long Can You Go Until Your Next Charge?

If you are frequently traveling for work or regularly out on multi-day adventures in the backcountry, you'll need a smartwatch with a longer battery life. The models that scored well in our Battery Life metric come with batteries that charge quickly and last longer. It's important to point out that battery life changes dramatically with the GPS enabled versus regular use with it disabled. The longest lasting batteries are not necessarily the fastest to charge, either, so you will want to consider which is more important to you.

Does Display Quality Vary with Price?

Yes, but you must consider the balance of price versus performance. The top-tier models we tested all have beautiful displays, but some cost significantly more despite only subtle differences in display quality. Among all of the watches we tested, we didn't experience a single one that didn't have a satisfactorily visible screen, even under bright sunlight. If you plan to wear your new watch in harsh environments, it's important to note that our real-world testing proved that a sapphire crystal screen is much more scratch resistant than a Gorilla Glass screen. Otherwise, it's not likely that you need to pay a premium for display quality alone.

Conclusion

We recognize that sorting through specifications and feature sets to find the best smartwatch is a real challenge — trust us, we've done it! By putting in the work, we hope that our comprehensive review will help you narrow down your choices and provide you with the confidence that your final decision will be the right one.