That split shapes everything. It affects how they feel, how you use them and who they are actually for. But this is not where the differences end, as covered in my Ozlo Sleepbuds and QuietOn 4 reviews.

Ozlo Sleepbuds (view on Ozlo / Amazon); QuietOn 4 (view on QuietOn).

Two very different approaches to noise

QuietOn 4 is built around active noise cancellation. The goal is simple, reduce external noise as much as possible and let you sleep in silence. In practice, that works best for steady low frequency sounds like snoring or distant traffic. It does not eliminate everything, but it takes the edge off enough to make a difference.

Ozlo goes in the opposite direction. Instead of trying to remove noise, it masks it. You get built in soundscapes and the option to stream your own audio, whether that is white noise, rain sounds or a podcast. The idea is not silence, it is control. You decide what fills the space.

That difference sounds subtle on paper. In reality, it completely changes the experience.

Simplicity vs a full system

QuietOn 4 keeps things very stripped back. There is no app and no Bluetooth connection to worry about. You take them out of the case, put them in and they start working. There is nothing to tweak or manage, which makes them easy to use night after night. That simplicity is a big part of the appeal, especially if the goal is to remove friction at bedtime.

Ozlo Sleepbuds take a more involved approach. The Smart Case plays a central role, and you are expected to use the app to get the most out of them. That is where you pick your sounds, control playback and adjust how they behave overnight. It is not difficult to use, but it does mean there is a setup step and an ongoing dependency on the app.

In practice, this creates a clear difference. QuietOn fits into your routine without really changing it. Ozlo asks you to engage with it, which makes it feel more like part of the routine itself.

How they deal with real world noise

QuietOn 4 works best when the noise is consistent. Snoring, engine hum or background city noise are exactly what it is designed for. It reduces those sounds rather than covering them up. That can feel more natural if you are sensitive to audio playing in your ears.

Ozlo handles a wider range of situations. Because you are masking noise rather than cancelling it, it can deal better with unpredictable sounds. A sudden noise is less likely to pull you out of sleep if it is competing with something you are already listening to.

This is less about which one is better and more about the type of noise you are dealing with.

Comfort and overnight use

Both are clearly built for side sleeping, but they do not feel the same once you actually lie on them for a full night.

Ozlo Sleepbuds stand out here. The low profile design and soft tips mean they sit flush enough that you can lie on your side without that sharp pressure you get from regular earbuds. They stay in place and do not need constant adjustment, even when you move around. The fact that they manage this while still delivering audio is a big part of why they feel so well executed.

QuietOn 4 is also comfortable, but in a different way. The smaller size helps, and they sit neatly in the ear without sticking out much. At the same time, the fit is a bit more earplug-like. They do the job, but there is slightly more awareness of them, especially when your ear is pressed into the pillow.

So both work for overnight use, but they do not disappear in the same way. Ozlo feels more natural over long periods, while QuietOn leans more towards a functional, earplug-style fit.

As far as battery life – either of these will get you through a full night of sleep. And they both come with a portable charging case that you can use on the go.

Our takeaway

The duo sits in a similar price bracket, at around $300, so this is not a budget versus premium decision. It really comes down to how you want to deal with noise at night.

QuietOn 4 is the simpler option. You put them in and they get to work reducing background noise, with nothing to manage or think about. That makes them easy to live with, especially if the goal is to keep things as frictionless as possible.

Ozlo Sleepbuds take a different route. You are getting audio, an app and a Smart Case, which gives you far more control over what you hear. That also means a bit more setup and interaction, but it opens up more ways to deal with noise.

So neither is clearly better at this price. The choice is between removing sound as much as possible, or replacing it with something you control.

Ozlo Sleepbuds (view on Ozlo / Amazon); QuietOn 4 (view on QuietOn).

Tech specs comparison

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

The post Ozlo Sleepbuds vs QuietOn 4: Which approach actually helps you sleep appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Our recent look at Active 3 Premium alongside Amazfit Active Max set some useful context. On paper, Active 3 Premium and Balance 2 can look like close relatives, but once you start comparing hardware, battery, display and day-to-day use, their priorities pull apart in ways that matter.

Design and feel

Active 3 Premium has a compact 45 mm case, stainless steel frame and four physical buttons. The button layout suits a training workflow where physical control is useful, whether you are running, doing intervals or switching modes mid-session.

Balance 2 is bigger and more substantial. The 47.4 mm case, aluminium alloy frame and fiber-reinforced polymer build give it a solid, lifestyle-leaning character, reinforced by the dual-speaker setup.

Control is kept simple. A flat button and a fully functional crown handle most interactions without friction. With the larger screen and smoother interface, the tendency is to scroll and glance rather than press. The 22 mm strap and slightly heavier build also help keep the watch settled during all-day wear.

The difference in water resistance is worth noting. Balance 2 goes up to 10 ATM against Active 3 Premium’s 5 ATM, making it the stronger pick if swimming or regular water exposure is part of the picture.

Screen and everyday use

Both watches use AMOLED panels, but they present information differently. Balance 2’s 1.5 inch screen feels relaxed to read whether you are checking notifications, glancing at a map or scanning daily stats. Sapphire glass covers both displays, though Balance 2 trades some peak brightness for a broader overall package. Its 2,000 nit ceiling sits below Active 3 Premium’s 3,000 nits, but both hold up well in direct sunlight.

Active 3 Premium’s 1.32 inch display carries a higher pixel density, which makes text and graphics feel sharp and tight. It is a narrower canvas, but one that works well for focused workouts where quick, clear glances are all you need. The gap is not dramatic, but it does shape how each watch feels as you move between training and the rest of the day.

Battery life and daily performance

This is where the practical difference is hardest to ignore.

Balance 2 carries a 658 mAh battery, the same size found in Active Max, and it shows. Rated battery life stretches to 21 days in typical use, with heavy use still approaching two weeks. Accurate GPS mode delivers up to 33 hours of tracking.

Active 3 Premium works with a smaller 365 mAh cell. Typical life is around 12 days, heavy use brings that down to about 7 days, and GPS tracking runs to roughly 24 hours. A power saving GPS mode extends things somewhat, but the gap with Balance 2 remains clear.

Balance 2 is built to go longer between charges, which suits multi-week trips or a schedule where stopping to charge is an inconvenience. Active 3 Premium’s battery life is still respectable, just more dependent on a regular top-up routine.

Sports, GPS and running tools

Active 3 Premium leans further into structured training support. It includes advanced running metrics and built-in running workouts stored on the device, alongside a six-system GPS constellation that covers most environments well.

Balance 2 also supports six satellite systems and adds dual-band GPS with a circularly polarised antenna, which is designed to improve tracking consistency in urban areas or under heavy tree cover. This means the tracking should be more solid, and the larger screen makes maps and routes easier to follow.

Both watches include Track Run mode, smart trajectory correction, virtual pacer and support for peripheral devices such as heart rate straps and cycling sensors. The split is that Active 3 Premium builds its feature set around training structure, while Balance 2 maintains a wider balance across sport, lifestyle and general usability.

Health and daily tools

On the health side, both watches rely on the same BioTracker PPG sensor hardware. Which means heart rate, SpO2, stress and sleep tracking should behave in broadly similar ways across both devices. So no meaningful gap in raw sensing capability.

Smart features covering notifications, phone control, reminders, weather and basic daily tools are present on both. Nothing stands out as unique to one or the other here, aside from the slightly more polished overall feel that Balance 2 carries through into these areas.

So what does that all mean

Active 3 Premium and Balance 2 share some common ground, but they are not chasing the same role. Balance 2 sits higher in the range at around $300. Active 3 Premium comes in well below that at roughly $170. The extra spend on Balance 2 gets you a bigger screen, longer battery life, dual-band GPS, rotating crown and a more relaxed daily experience. Active 3 Premium keeps things compact and training-focused.

Where things become clearer is value. Active 3 Premium delivers a lot of what most people actually use day to day, especially for running, at a much lower price. Balance 2 justifies its cost if you specifically want the bigger screen, longer battery life, and a more lifestyle driven watch. If not, Active 3 Premium feels like the smarter buy for the money.

Amazfit Active 3 Premium vs Amazfit Balance 2: Tech specs comparison

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

The post Amazfit Active 3 Premium vs Balance 2 what you gain and what you trade off appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

These two sit under the same name and sell for the same $170 price. The differences are subtle rather than dramatic, but they are still worth unpacking because they point to slightly different design priorities.

View on Zepp Health, Amazon.

Design and physical approach

Looking at these two watches, they do feel closely related, almost like different takes on the same base design. That is probably a fair way to think about them.

Active 3 Premium pulls things in. The 45 mm case is slimmer and more compact, and the stainless steel frame gives it a slightly denser, more deliberate feel without adding bulk. The four button layout matters here. It signals a watch that expects to be used actively during runs, with physical controls that make sense when pace changes or conditions are not ideal.

Active Max goes the other way. The 48.5 mm case is noticeably larger on the wrist, but the aluminium and polymer construction keeps it comfortable despite the size. From living with it, the impression is less about precision interaction and more about ease. The big screen does a lot of the work for you, and the two button setup reinforces that this is a watch you glance at more than constantly manage mid workout.

Strap width also nudges usage. Active 3 Premium sticks to 20 mm, which keeps it compatible with a wide range of lighter bands. Active Max moves to 22 mm, which suits the larger case and battery and helps stabilise it on the wrist, but also places it more firmly in big watch territory.

Screen and readability

Both watches use AMOLED displays and reach the same peak brightness, but they feel quite different once you start using them.

Active Max leans heavily on scale. The 1.5 inch display is large enough that text, charts, and maps rarely feel cramped. Data fields are easy to pick up at a glance, and that matters when you are moving or checking progress mid run. The strengthened glass with an anti fingerprint coating suits this role well, keeping the screen readable without constant wiping.

Active 3 Premium takes a more compact and refined approach. The smaller 1.32 inch panel packs in more pixels, which gives it a crisper look, especially for text and fine details. The sapphire glass adds another layer of confidence for everyday wear, where knocks and scratches are more likely to happen over time.

This is not simply a big screen versus small screen choice. Active Max focuses on quick visibility and low effort reading. Active 3 Premium puts the emphasis on sharpness and long term durability. Which one pulls ahead depends on whether you value scale or long term toughness.

Battery strategy

Battery strategy is where the two watches fully diverge.

Active Max runs on a 658 mAh battery and behaves like it. Typical use stretches up to 25 days, heavy use still clears nearly two weeks, and GPS endurance reaches 64 hours. Even with music playing, it keeps going far longer than most watches in this size class.

Active 3 Premium is more conservative. Twelve days in typical use, seven in heavy use, and 24 hours of GPS. That is still respectable, but clearly not the point of the device. The inclusion of a dedicated power saving GPS mode that stretches to 76 hours shows a different philosophy. It is there for specific scenarios, not everyday reliance.

This is a classic depth versus duration decision. Active Max wants you to stop thinking about charging. Active 3 Premium expects you to plan.

Training and running focus

Both watches run on the same platform and support Zepp Coach and PeakBeats, so the overall training framework feels familiar. The difference shows up once you start using them regularly.

Active 3 Premium leans further into structured running. It adds metrics like lactate threshold and builds more of the training experience directly into the watch through preloaded workouts and plans. It also supports an extra satellite system, which gives it a slightly broader positioning setup on paper.

Active Max pulls that back slightly. You still get guided training and plenty of structure, but some of the deeper metrics are missing. 

During runs, the emphasis is on clear data and steady guidance. I found GPS tracking and heart rate to be reliable and consistent, and the big screen makes pace and distance easy to read without fiddling.

Also worth noting are some navigation differences. Active 3 Premium goes further with tools like auto rerouting and point of navigation, features that have previously lived higher up the range. These are useful when following routes or running somewhere unfamiliar and fit the watch’s more training led personality. But both of these watches have the same 4GB storage space for maps and music.

Peripheral support is also the same. Heart rate belts and cycling sensors connect without issue. The real difference is not what they can pair with, but how much each watch tries to step in and guide the session.

Sensors and positioning

As far as health sensors – there’s no real difference there. Both models use the same BioTracker PPG hardware and offer identical monitoring features day to day. Sleep tracking, BioCharge, stress, SpO2, and skin temperature behave the same way.

Positioning is where a subtle difference appears. As mentioned, Active 3 Premium supports six satellite systems, while Active Max supports five. That extra system may matter in dense environments or structured track sessions, which fits the Premium model’s running focus. But neither of these watches has dual-band GPS. Only single band.

Our takeaway

Both of these watches sell for around 170 dollars, so this is not a price based decision. It is about understanding the family dynamic. Active 3 Premium feels like the more focused sibling of Active Max, built with a different job in mind.

Active Max goes big on stamina and visibility. It suits people who want to forget about charging for weeks, glance at a large screen, and keep training features simple and predictable. It works well as a lifestyle watch that also handles workouts without fuss.

Active 3 Premium pulls things in tighter. It is aimed at runners who want more feedback from each session, more control mid workout, along with a smaller case with tougher materials. You give up some battery life, but you gain detail and structure.

View on Zepp Health, Amazon.

Amazfit Active 3 Premium vs Active Max: Tech specs comparison

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

The post Where Amazfit Active 3 Premium vs Active Max really differ appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

This was not a clean park loop or a track workout. It was a typical city run through Zone 1 with traffic lights, brief stops, changes in rhythm and mixed terrain. That kind of session tends to expose how good a watch is at handling reality rather than ideal conditions.

You can check out the watches on the Zepp Health website and Garmin.com.

Distance tracking stays within reason

Both watches landed close enough on distance that neither raised concerns. Garmin recorded 7.58 km while Amazfit came in at 7.48 km. Over this kind of route, that difference sits well within normal GPS variation. Also, very little difference in the speed of acquiring the initial GPS connection.

So far so good.

Heart rate is also where the two platforms were close. Amazfit gave me an average of 140 bpm with a peak of 160 bpm. Garmin reported 139 bpm on average and a slightly higher max of 166 bpm.

The overall pattern matched closely throughout the run. For an optical sensor in a stop start environment, that is a strong result on both sides. From a training point of view, I would be comfortable using either set of heart rate data to guide aerobic work.

Granted there was a difference for HRmax, but this was an outlier. On my other runs the max heart rate difference was typically within 1-3 beats. A subsequent Zone 2 7K run in Central London showed pretty much identical GPS tracking and only a 1 bpm difference in average and maximum heart rate as shown in the screenshots below.

Running dynamics show small but consistent differences

Cadence was close but not identical. Amazfit reported 180 spm on average while Garmin came in at 176 spm. I have seen this pattern before. Amazfit tends to sit a little higher on cadence, especially when pace fluctuates.

Stride length was effectively the same. Amazfit showed 97 cm and Garmin rounded that to 1 metre. That tells me both watches are broadly aligned on forward motion.

Vertical movement is where the numbers drifted further apart. Amazfit reported higher vertical oscillation and a higher vertical ratio. Garmin showed lower values for both, suggesting a more conservative view of bounce and efficiency. I tend to trust Garmin more here, based on long term consistency across different runs and shoes.

Ground contact time flipped the story. Amazfit logged a shorter contact time than Garmin. Both figures were plausible, but again this looks like a modelling difference rather than a meaningful disagreement about how I was running.

Training load interpretation

This is the area where the two ecosystems clearly diverged for me. But there’s a reason.

Amazfit rated the run as Aerobic 5.0 and labelled it excessive, with a high training load score and higher recovery time. Garmin classified the same session as a tempo focused aerobic run and assigned a much lower overall load.

Based on how the run felt, Garmin’s interpretation made more sense. This was a steady effort with interruptions, not an all out aerobic stress test.

Subsequently I looked at how my heart rate zones were set up. And the mystery was solved..

The Amazfit estimated my maximum heart rate from which it calculated the HR zones at 164 bpm, while Garmin pegged my max at 174 bpm. I have used the Garmin for years so it had time to estimate more accurately this metric. You can’t edit the Amazfit metric directly, but over time the max HR would have adjusted gradually. Which in turn would have eliminated this difference in training load.

As far as Vo2Max, Amazfit estimated it at 42 ml per kg per minute and rated it as very good. That is 3 points below what my Garmin tells me. But again, the Garmin has had a longer amount of time establishing my baseline. On the very next run the Amazfit pushed me up to 43 ml per kg.

Final thoughts

The Amazfit Active Max captures the fundamentals well, especially when you factor in the price difference. Distance, heart rate and core running dynamics are solid and consistent, even in a messy urban environment. Where it still trails Garmin somewhat is in the depth of stats. You get more of them with Garmin.

Garmin’s Forerunner line is purpose built for sports tracking, with years of refinement around how sessions are classified and how stress is contextualised. Amazfit takes a more generic approach. But it’s not a huge difference.

Amazfit Active Max*

Order now

I would say – Amazfit does the job well and offers strong value for money. For runners who rely on training load, recovery guidance and long term planning, Garmin still has the edge, even if that edge comes at a much higher cost. The gap is narrowing, but it has not totally disappeared yet.

One thing that genuinely stands out on the Amazfit side is the beautiful design and excellent display. The large screen is clear, bright and easy to read at a glance. It makes a real difference during training and is one area where Amazfit arguably outshines many more expensive sports watches.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as your preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

The post I tested the Amazfit Active Max vs Garmin for running appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

They share a lot under the hood, but they feel different on the wrist. You can check out my Vertical 2 review for the full breakdown. I’m also testing the Race 2, and that review will drop in the next few days.

Here is a no nonsense look at the 5 key differences separating Suunto Vertical 2 and Race 2.

View on Suunto / Amazon (Vertical 2 / Race 2)

Vertical 2 is thicker and heavier

Both watches share the same 49mm case size, but the Vertical 2 has more heft. Its stainless steel or titanium build feels more rugged, with an outdoors-first design that doesn’t try to be slim or minimal. The Race 2 trims things down with plastic lugs and case sides, giving it a sportier feel.

Vertical 2 is also thicker, at 13.5mm compared to 12.5mm for the Race 2. The weight difference is noticeable too. The steel version of Vertical hits 87 grams with the strap, while the titanium model drops to 74. Race 2 lands at 76 grams for steel and just 65 for titanium.

If you’ve got slimmer wrists, the Race 2 wears more comfortably. Vertical 2 is better suited to medium or larger wrists. That said, neither watch feels huge. Suunto has kept the design balanced enough that both are still wearable day to day. But I’d say Race 2 is more unisex and Vertical 2 is more masculine.

Button layout is different

Suunto takes a different approach with controls on these two watches. Vertical 2 uses a familiar three-button layout on the right side. It’s simple, reliable and works well even with gloves or sweaty hands. Race 2 swaps in a rotating crown paired with two flat buttons. It feels more modern and offers smoother scrolling through menus, but it is less glove-friendly. In everyday use, the crown gives Race 2 the edge in usability. That is, unless you are out in the cold.

Both watches feature a 1.5 inch AMOLED display with 466×466 resolution. Brightness is up to 2,000 nits, making it easy to read even in strong sunlight. Maps look sharp, workout screens pop and visibility is excellent across conditions.

Suunto seems to be moving away from MIP screens. Not everyone will agree with this, but AMOLED is easier on the eyes and probably cheaper to produce. Also, that type of screen is no longer a battery drain.

The flashlight gives Vertical 2 an edge in the dark

One thing the Vertical 2 has that the Race 2 doesn’t is a proper LED flashlight. It’s built into the top edge of the case and shines forward like a real torch, not just a white screen. You can turn it on with a shortcut, and once you start using it, you’ll probably wonder how you managed without it. Whether you’re out on a trail, getting up at night, or just looking for something behind the sofa, it’s genuinely useful.

You get a few brightness levels, a red mode for night vision, and even an SOS flash if you want to get fancy. It can run during workouts, although switching it on mid-activity takes a few extra taps. Still, it’s a handy tool that comes in more useful situations than you’d expect.

The Race 2 leaves it out completely. You just get the screen light option of the past generation. That keeps things slimmer and lighter, but you lose what’s easily one of the most practical extras Suunto has added in a while. If you do a lot of outdoor stuff, the flashlight alone might be enough to sway you.

Battery life differences are there, but not huge

On paper, both watches deliver excellent endurance, especially with dual-band GPS enabled. But the Vertical 2 edges slightly ahead in every mode. You get up to 20 days in smartwatch mode compared to 18 on the Race 2. Standby time stretches to 40 days for the Vertical, while the Race tops out at 30.

In training modes, the gap is a bit more noticeable. With all-systems GNSS and multi-band enabled, the Vertical manages up to 65 hours, while the Race comes in at 55. Switch to single-band, and that bumps up to 75 and 65 hours respectively. If you really want to push it, power-saving GNSS extends things to 250 hours on the Vertical and 200 on the Race.

Suunto also offers multiple power modes for workouts. On the Vertical 2, you can switch between Performance, Endurance, Ultra and Tour to manage battery on the fly. The Race 2 supports the same modes, but with slightly lower figures across the board. These tweaks add flexibility depending on your activity and how long you plan to be out.

In practice, the Vertical 2 lasts a couple of days longer with mixed use. That margin might not matter for everyone, but if you go long between charges or head off-grid often, it gives you some breathing room.

Here is the detailed battery life comparison.

Vertical 2 costs more, but not by much

Price is another thing to think about. The stainless steel version of the Vertical 2 goes for $600, and if you want the titanium model, that bumps it up to $700. Race 2 is a bit cheaper. You’re looking at $500 for stainless steel and $600 for titanium.

So the difference is about $100 between the two watches at each level. If you want the lighter build or the extra features like the flashlight, the Vertical 2 might justify the extra spend. But if your focus is training and you don’t need all the outdoor extras, Race 2 gives you most of what matters for less.

Vertical 2 aims for the outdoors, Race 2 for training

These two watches are built for different kinds of users. Vertical 2 is clearly meant for the outdoors. It’s tough, has longer battery life, and includes a proper LED flashlight. It’s the kind of watch you want on your wrist when you’re out hiking, running trails or travelling off the grid.

Race 2 is more about performance. It’s lighter, slimmer and easier to wear if you’ve got smaller wrists. The digital crown makes scrolling quicker, and the overall setup feels more tuned for runners or triathletes who don’t need all the extras.

Both watches use the same dual-band GNSS and optical heart rate sensor. I tested the Vertical 2 alongside a Garmin in central London and it tracked really well, even in tricky GPS spots. Heart rate was also close, as long as the watch was fitted high enough on the wrist. If it slips too low, accuracy can drop, especially on smaller wrists.

Race 2 stays in place better because it weighs less. That helps with heart rate accuracy during movement. Since both share the same tracking tech, you’re not giving up anything in terms of performance. If you’re coming from Garmin or Coros, you’ll feel right at home.

Neither of these is trying to be a full-on smartwatch. There’s no music storage, no contactless payments and no app store. You still get notifications, media controls and weather, but that’s about it.

The choice really comes down to how you train. If most of your time is spent chasing pace, Race 2 makes more sense. If you want something that can handle big adventures, the Vertical 2 is worth the extra weight.

View on Suunto / Amazon (Vertical 2 / Race 2)

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

The post Five key differences between Suunto Vertical 2 vs Race 2 explained appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

At first glance these two watches might seem similar. The Vertical 2 keeps the tough, high-end feel of the original but swaps in an AMOLED screen that really stands out. It’s heavier than the Garmin due to the extra metal in the build, and it uses three buttons instead of five. Plus that one has a MIP display. These might seem like small differences, but they affect how each watch feels on the wrist during a run.

GPS accuracy stands out

Starting of with GPS, and both watches come equipped with dual-frequency GNSS. In practice, the results were some of the closest I’ve seen.

On a run through central London, Suunto logged 10.71 km while Garmin came in at 10.69 km. That route included tight corners, frequent direction changes and tall buildings, yet both watches stayed locked on with minimal drift. On another run, they both recorded exactly 7.56 km. Even on a third test, the difference was just a single metre.

I also overlaid the GPS tracks from both watches on a map for the 10.7K, and the paths matched almost perfectly from start to finish. When comparing distance differences over time, the average positional gap was around 54 meters, with the biggest spike hitting about 124 meters. That was likely due to signal blockage or brief interference.

Satellite lock was quick on both devices. Overall, the GPS performance between the two watches is nearly identical.

Heart rate accuracy needs wrist awareness

Heart rate tracking told a slightly different story. While both watches performed similarly on average, I had issues with Suunto initially.

The culprit turned out to be fit. Because the Vertical 2 is heavier, it was slipping close to the wrist bone on my slender wrist. Once I adjusted the position higher up and tightened the strap, the readings improved dramatically.

On the same 10.7K run, average heart rate was 150 bpm on the Suunto and 151 bpm on the Garmin. Max readings were 172 and 171 respectively. The graphs tracked closely throughout the run, with a small deviation around the 6K mark when I briefly stopped because my phone fell out of my rucksack. In fact, in that instance, I’d say Suunto’s tracking was the more responsive of the two.

The upgraded optical sensor on the Vertical 2 is the same one found in the Race 2. It performs well, as long as the fit is right. For those with slimmer wrists, it might require a little experimentation. Garmin’s Elevate sensor, on the other hand, was consistent but felt slightly slower to react to sudden changes in effort.

App insights and data differences

The data breakdown between the two platforms is also worth mentioning. Garmin still offers a more detailed post-run analysis, with more granular pacing and physiological data. But Suunto has improved its app a lot over the past few years. The platform includes VO2 max estimates, fitness trend charts, training load, and recovery insights like fatigue and form scores. For most runners, there’s more than enough here.

On side-by-side screenshots from the 10.7K run, the Suunto app presents heart rate, pace, cadence, and power graphs that closely match Garmin’s metrics. Garmin does offer a bit more in terms of running metrics, but the difference is not huge.

Some quick usability notes

As someone who has been using Garmin watches for a long time, I found there was no learning curve. The Suunto interface is pretty straightforward.

You don’t need to dig through menus to start a run, switch on maps or change settings. It’s all there and easy to get to. One handy feature is how the watch notices when you stop moving and asks if you want to resume the activity. Little things like that make it easier to just focus on the run.

If you’re thinking about the Vertical 2, I’d say it definitely keeps up with Garmin watches. The AMOLED screen looks great and the GPS and heart rate data are solid. It does feel a bit heavy, so if you’ve got smaller wrists, the lighter Race 2 might be a better match. But overall, the Vertical 2 is right up there.

View Vertical 2 on Suunto’s website or Amazon.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

The post Suunto Vertical 2 vs Garmin running test for GPS & heart rate appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

On the surface, the two devices don’t look remotely related. One sits on your finger like a regular ring, the other wraps around your wrist or upper arm like a soft, lightweight band. But under the hood, they share a lot. And, of course, they share the same smartphone app.

I reviewed the Helio Ring at launch and found it surprisingly capable, especially for heart rate tracking during workouts. The Strap follows the same low-profile, sensor-driven approach, but reworks it into a format that might appeal to a different kind of user.

Depending on how you train, and what kind of data you care about most, one of these might suit you better. So let’s take a closer look.

View on Zepp Health website, Amazon (Helio Strap, Helio Ring)

Minimalism, two ways

These two don’t look like they come from the same product line at all. The Helio Ring is clean, minimal and sleek. You’d never guess it’s a fitness tracker. The Strap, on the other hand, is more of a soft, practical band that wraps around your wrist or upper arm. It’s built to stay out of the way, not win any design awards.

The Ring is the better-looking option by a mile. With its titanium alloy outer shell and super slim 2.6 mm profile, it feels like something you could wear with anything. I wore it day and night for weeks, including during sleep, and it never felt intrusive. The edges are rounded, the finish is smooth, and after plenty of use, mine still didn’t have a single scratch. At under 4 grams, you really do forget it’s even there. It also comes with 10 ATM water resistance, so swimming and showering are not a problem.

The Strap is less about looks and more about utility. It’s built with a fiber-reinforced polymer case and comes with a soft nylon band and Velcro buckle. That makes it easy to adjust, whether you’re wearing it on your wrist or higher up on your arm. That dual placement is a useful feature. You can keep it tight and low-profile during workouts, or move it further up if wrist movement is an issue. At 20 grams it’s still fairly light, but definitely more noticeable than the Ring. It also has 5 ATM water resistance, so it can handle pool sessions and everyday splashes, just not as deep or as reliably as the Ring.

In terms of comfort, both get the job done. The Ring fits like any other band-style ring, and once you find the right size, it stays put. I used to switch fingers for workouts just to get a tighter fit. The Strap gives you more flexibility with placement, which helps with sensor stability and comfort depending on what you’re doing.

Both devices skip the screen entirely. No buttons, no LEDs, nothing visual on the hardware. Everything runs through the Zepp app. That simplicity is part of the appeal. You just wear it, go about your day, and check the data when you want to.

Same platform, different sensors

The Ring uses Zepp Health’s older BioTracker PPG module with one dual-color LED and two photodiodes. It’s not the newer 6.0 version, but honestly, it doesn’t need to be. When I tested it during a half marathon, the heart rate readings were nearly identical to what I got from a Garmin chest strap. That’s rare for a smart ring. It also has a gyroscope to help with motion accuracy and an EDA sensor that tracks skin conductance, which can give you some insight into stress and recovery. You don’t see that in many wearables, let alone in this form factor.

The Strap goes with the newer BioTracker PPG 6.0, which should bring some improvements in optical tracking, especially during movement-heavy workouts. You also get a geomagnetic sensor thrown in, which can help with orientation and activity recognition. But it drops the EDA and gyroscope. So while the Strap keeps things simple, it’s clearly built with physical training in mind more than stress or emotional tracking.

Both devices have a temperature sensor and accelerometer. And both rely on connected GPS from your phone when logging outdoor sessions. So you’ll get the same mapped runs or rides either way.

Battery life that fits the form

The difference here is clear. The Helio Strap lasts up to 10 days on a single charge. That’s a solid stretch for a screenless tracker and lines up with what you’d expect from a larger device.

The Helio Ring gets you up to 4 days, depending on how many features you’ve got switched on. In my experience, it was more like 3. During my half marathon test, it dropped just 15 percent, which is pretty good. Charging takes around 90 minutes, though getting it to sit right on the dock can be a bit fiddly.

If you want less charging, go for the Strap. The Ring still holds its own, but you’ll be plugging it in more often.

Features compared

The Helio Ring keeps things pretty lean on the sports side. You get four workout modes, but it does throw in some nice extras like advanced running support and race predictions. There’s also a trial of Zepp Fitness, which adds coaching content through the app. It syncs with all the popular platforms – Strava, adidas Running, komoot, Relive, Google Fit and Apple Health.

The Strap, however, goes much further if workouts are your focus. It supports 27 sports modes and can auto-detect 25 strength training exercises. It is also likely to give you more accurate data than something sitting on your finger, particularly during high intensity exercises. 

Plus you can hook the strap up to treadmills, stopwatches or even other Amazfit watches. It also stores up to 21 days of heart rate data offline and can broadcast your heart rate to other smartwatches in real time. Same syncing options as the Ring, but it adds TrainingPeaks via Terra to the mix.

When it comes to health, both devices track the essentials. You also get PAI. Worth a separate mention is the EDA sensor on the ring. It’s used by the Auto Emotion Monitoring feature to spot changes in your mood. You can check your emotion log in the app and tell it if the suggestions feel right.

Where things split further is in recovery. The Ring uses a Readiness Score, which pulls in various metrics and gives you a simple number and some insights. The Strap ditches the older Readiness system in favour of BioCharge, a newer energy score that actually works better in practice. That system will probably roll out to the Ring eventually, but for now it’s Strap-only.

Price and bottom line

The price gap between these two is big. The Helio Ring launched at around $299, though you can often find it discounted. The Strap comes in at just $100. So that alone will be a deciding factor for a lot of people.

What you’re paying for with the Ring is the form factor, build quality and extra sensors. It’s smaller, made of titanium and tracks things like EDA and stress that the Strap skips. It also feels more like a lifestyle wearable. You can wear it all day and night without even noticing it’s there.

The Strap is built for training. You get more sports modes, strength tracking, offline HR storage, and that new BioCharge energy metric. It doesn’t have the polished look or premium materials, but it makes up for that in function.

If you want something lightweight, stylish and focused on recovery, the Ring is a great option. But if you’re into workouts, want more data during exercise and don’t care about wearing a ring, the Strap makes a strong case at a third of the price.

View on Zepp Health website, Amazon (Helio Strap, Helio Ring)

Helio Strap – buy if:

• You prefer wearing a strap over a ring
• You need long battery life with minimal charging
• You want solid tracking without spending too much
• You like the idea of a daily energy score (BioCharge)
• You want detailed workout tracking with lots of sports modes

Helio Ring – buy if:

• You want a discreet, lightweight tracker you can wear 24/7
• Recovery insights and guided coaching matter more than raw workout modes
• You like the look and feel of a titanium smart ring over a strap
• You’re fine with shorter battery life for a sleeker design
• You’re willing to pay more for premium materials and extra sensors

Tech specs comparison: Amazfit Helio Ring vs Helio Strap

The post Comparing Amazfit screenless wearables Helio Ring vs Helio Strap appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Purchases made through our links may earn us a commission. Here’s how it works.

Garmin Venu 4

View on Amazon View on Garmin

Premium feel with deeper features

The Venu 4 toughens up the build, adds multi-band GPS, a flashlight and new wellness features. It also expands support for running metrics, coaching plans & multisport sessions. Battery life takes a small hit, but the trade-off is more depth across health, fitness and smart features. It’s the most capable Venu yet, blending lifestyle with serious training.

Pros

• Advanced sensors (ECG, skin temp, altimeter)
• Multi-band GNSS
• Built-in LED flashlight
• Speaker, mic, voice assistant and calling
• Coaching, running metrics and multisport

Cons

• More expensive than simpler alternatives
• Heavier on wrist, especially the 45mm model
• Some features may be overkill for casual users

Garmin Vivoactive 6

View on Amazon View on Garmin

Stripped back but still solid

The Vivoactive 6 keeps things light and simple, offering core tracking features in a smaller, more affordable package. It skips the extras like multi-band GPS, ECG and advanced coaching, but still delivers solid performance for everyday use. It’s a practical choice if you don’t need the deeper metrics or premium materials of the Venu line.

Pros

• Affordable price for a watch with GPS, music and NFC
• Lightweight and comfortable
• AMOLED display with good resolution
• Solid battery life, even with always-on display
• Supports core sensors and fitness tracking features

Cons

• No multi-band GNSS
• No ECG, skin temperature and barometric altimeter
• No speaker, microphone or voice assistant support
• Lacks advanced training tools

The Garmin Vivoactive 6 slots in just below the Venu line, offering many of the same tracking features in a lighter and more affordable package. It keeps the round AMOLED display and core Garmin experience, but trims back on premium materials, sensors and extras to hit a lower price point.

The Venu 4, on the other hand, builds on what the Venu 3 started. It adds multi-band GPS, a stainless steel bezel, LED flashlight and deeper health insights. There’s also more in the way of training guidance, coaching and advanced running metrics.

That extra hardware and software comes with trade-offs. The Venu 4 is heavier, more expensive and slightly shorter on battery life in some modes. Vivoactive 6 may not have the same feature list, but for many users, it might be enough.

Here’s how they compare head to head.

Garmin Venu 4 vs Vivoactive 6: Tech specs comparison

Design is similar

Starting off with design, and both watches stick with Garmin’s round shape, two-button layout and AMOLED touchscreens. The Venu 4 gives you a choice of 45mm or 41mm case sizes. Vivoactive 6 only comes in one size at 42mm, which sits right between the two Venu options. That makes it a safe middle ground for most wrists, but you lose the flexibility of picking a smaller or larger case.

Materials also differ slightly. Venu 4 combines a stainless steel bezel with a fiber-reinforced polymer case. Vivoactive 6 uses the same case material, but swaps in anodized aluminum for the bezel instead. Both have Corning Gorilla Glass 3 protecting the display, so scratch resistance is similar. The Venu 4 just feels a bit more refined in the hand. And it looks slightly more premium.

Weight is where the difference is more obvious. The 45mm Venu 4 weighs 56 grams, while the 41mm version drops that to 46 grams. Vivoactive 6 is noticeably lighter at just 36 grams. That’s something you’ll feel during long runs or sleep tracking. Vivoactive is easier to wear around the clock, while the Venu 4 has more presence on the wrist.

Colour options also reflect the difference in approach. Venu 4 sticks to safer tones, with the 45mm available in Slate or Silver, and the 41mm in Lunar Gold, Silver or Slate. Vivoactive 6 gets more playful, with combinations like Jasper Green, Pink Dawn or Lunar Gold with a bone-coloured strap. If you want something low-key, Venu 4 fits the bill. If you prefer a bit more personality, Vivoactive 6 gives you that out of the box.

Essential reading: Top fitness trackers and health gadgets

An important addition with the Venu 4 is the built-in LED flashlight. It’s tucked into the top of the watch. Vivoactive 6 leaves that out, so if you’re need a handy flashlight during evening walks or pre-dawn training, it’s something to consider.

Under the hood – where Venu 4 pulls ahead

Under the hood is where the Venu 4 really starts to pull ahead. It packs in a broader sensor set and more advanced positioning tech than the Vivoactive 6.

Now make no mistake – both watches include the usual core sensors. This includes an accelerometer, compass, gyroscope, thermometer, ambient light sensor, optical heart rate and Pulse Ox. But Venu 4 upgrades the heart rate to Elevate V5. Vivoactive 6 uses the older Elevate V4.

The Venu 4 also adds a few extras you won’t find on Vivoactive 6. That includes ECG, skin temperature and a barometric altimeter. Those features open the door to things like on-demand heart rhythm checks, heat response tracking and elevation data during hikes or hill runs. Vivoactive 6 doesn’t offer any of those.

GNSS is another area where the two watches differ. Both support GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, QZSS and Beidou. But only the Venu 4 offers multi-band support. That means it can lock onto multiple frequency bands from satellites, which helps improve location accuracy.

Elsewhere, both watches have Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and ANT+. You get offline music and Garmin Pay on both too. But only the Venu 4 includes a built-in speaker and microphone. That gives it voice assistant support, phone call capability (when connected) and audio prompts during workouts. Vivoactive 6 skips all that.

Battery life – how far each goes?

Battery life is one area where the Venu 4 and Vivoactive 6 trade blows depending on how you use the watch. In basic smartwatch mode, the 45mm Venu 4 gets up to 12 days, just edging out the 11 days offered by Vivoactive 6. But Vivoactive holds up better with always-on display turned on, managing 5 days compared to 4 on the larger Venu 4. Battery saver mode stretches both watches into multi-week territory, though Venu 4 still leads with a claimed 25 days.

For GPS tracking, the numbers flip. Vivoactive 6 pulls ahead in GPS-only mode with 21 hours, beating the 20 hours on Venu 4. In all-systems GNSS mode, it lasts 17 hours versus 19 on the Venu 4, though the gap narrows further when music is involved. The real distinction is multi-band support. Venu 4 offers that option, delivering up to 17 hours without music or 9 with it. Vivoactive 6 skips multi-band entirely, so if you want the best accuracy in dense cities or rough terrain, that feature could tip the scales.

The 41mm Venu 4 follows the same pattern, just scaled down slightly. You get 10 days in smartwatch mode, 3 with AOD, and up to 15 hours of GPS-only use. That’s still solid, but Vivoactive 6 remains competitive despite its lower price tag.

Smart features and daily tools

Venu 4 pulls ahead when it comes to smart functionality. It supports Bluetooth phone calls, voice assistant interaction and on-device voice commands. That makes it more useful in hands-free situations, whether you’re taking a call on the move or triggering a timer with your voice. Vivoactive 6 skips all of that. You’ll still get notifications and basic smart features, but nothing close to the same level of interaction.

You also get extras like Color Shift for nighttime readability, live event sharing and support for on-watch shortcuts. Venu 4 packs in more quality-of-life tools aimed at everyday convenience, not just fitness tracking.

Health and wellness tracking

Both watches cover core wellness tracking like heart rate, Pulse Ox, stress and respiration. But Venu 4 goes further. It adds skin temperature tracking, a health status overview widget and an automatic sleep alignment feature that helps adjust your circadian rhythm over time. There’s also Garmin’s Jet Lag Adviser, which builds on that same principle but applies it to travel across time zones.

Vivoactive 6 leaves all of those out. It still handles the basics well, but doesn’t offer as much long-term insight into how your body is adapting to stress, travel or recovery.

Workout suggestions and coaching

Venu 4 includes a broad set of daily suggested workouts. That covers running, walking, cycling and fitness-based sessions, many of which are heart rate-based. Walking even includes a duration-based option. On top of that, you get Garmin Fitness Coach and Cycling Coach support, both of which offer more structured planning.

There’s also support for mixed session multisport and traditional multisport workouts. Vivoactive 6 doesn’t include these coaching features or structured daily plans. It’s built more around tracking than guiding.

Training tools and analysis

This is where the difference becomes clearer. Venu 4 supports everything from training load focus and recovery time to race widgets and course guidance. You can track your VO2 Max on trail runs, monitor heat and altitude acclimation and get performance condition mid-run.

Even finer details are covered, like configurable lap alerts, virtual partner, finish time predictors and load ratio. The data feeds into Garmin’s unified training status system, which gives you a more complete view of readiness and recovery. Vivoactive 6 does include some elements like heart rate broadcasting and a limited version of recovery time, but the rest is missing.

Running metrics

Runners get far more with the Venu 4. It includes advanced metrics like vertical oscillation, ground contact time (with accessory), stride length, grade-adjusted pace and lactate threshold. There’s also support for Garmin’s running power and trail-specific features like auto climb and course-aware race predictions.

These metrics help fine-tune performance and pacing, especially for competitive runners. Vivoactive 6 doesn’t support any of these advanced metrics, so if running data is a priority, the Venu 4 is the obvious choice.

Outdoor and navigation features

If you spend time outdoors, Venu 4 brings more to the table. It offers point-to-point navigation, real-time breadcrumb trails, TracBack, elevation profiles and even a future elevation plot. There’s a barometric trend indicator with storm alerts, vertical speed data, and sun and moon tracking.

UltraTrac mode extends battery life for longer efforts, and features like Auto Rest and Up Ahead round out the outdoor profile. Vivoactive 6 isn’t built for navigation. It covers standard GPS tracking, but none of these additional tools.

Cycling extras

Cyclists also get more with Venu 4. There’s support for courses, power curves, FTP-based workouts and max power lap stats. It works with Garmin’s Vector and Rally power meters, as well as Varia headlight and camera accessories.

Both watches support speed and cadence sensors, but only Venu 4 rounds out the cycling experience with proper power data and external hardware support. Vivoactive 6 is more of a passive tracker in comparison.

Extra features on Venu 4 comparison table

Which one should you go for?

If you want the more complete watch, go with the Venu 4. It gives you better sensors, more accurate GPS, stronger coaching tools and proper training analysis. You also get extras like voice calls, race predictions, power data and navigation features that the Vivoactive 6 doesn’t offer at all.

But it comes at a cost. Venu 4 is heavier, more expensive and slightly shorter on battery in most modes. If you don’t need ECG, skin temperature, multi-band GNSS or deep training metrics, the Vivoactive 6 covers the basics well. You still get Garmin’s core tracking, AMOLED screen, and a watch that’s light enough to wear around the clock.

For casual users, the Vivoactive 6 is probably enough. For runners, outdoor users or anyone who wants more structure and depth, the Venu 4 is the better fit.

Garmin Venu 4

View on Amazon View on Garmin

Built for depth, not just basics

Pick the Venu 4 if you want tougher materials, sharper wellness tracking and coaching that goes far beyond casual use. Skip it if weight, shorter battery life or the higher price tag make those extras feel unnecessary.

Garmin Vivoactive 6

View on Amazon View on Garmin

Keeping it simple

Choose this model if you want a light, comfortable watch with solid tracking, good battery life and a friendlier price. Leave it if you need advanced metrics, navigation tools or the deeper coaching found on higher-end Garmins.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

The post Everyday tracking or advanced training Garmin Venu 4 vs Vivoactive 6 appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Purchases made through our links may earn us a commission. Here’s how it works.

Garmin Venu 4

View on Amazon View on Garmin

Getting more serious with the Venu 4

The Venu 4 toughens up the design, adds multi-band GPS, a flashlight, and new wellness tools, while expanding coaching and training features. Battery life is a bit shorter, but overall it’s a stronger, more capable upgrade over the Venu 3. It feels like the first Venu that really pushes into serious training territory.

Pros

• Full metal case with stainless steel bezel
• Multi-band GPS and broader sensor compatibility
• Built-in LED flashlight
• Training Readiness and Unified Training Status
• Advanced wellness tracking

Cons

• Shorter battery life
• Higher $550 price
• Heavier metal build
• Two buttons vs three on Venu 3

Garmin Venu 3

View on Amazon View on Garmin

Light, comfy and good value

The Venu 3 is light on the wrist with a bright AMOLED screen and can go up to two weeks on a charge. You get daily workout suggestions, decent sleep tracking and plenty of health stats. The extra button makes it easy to use. It doesn’t pack multi-band GPS or a flashlight, but feels like good value for the price.

Pros

• Lightweight and comfortable
• Bright AMOLED screen
• Up to two weeks battery
• Extra button for easier use
• You should be able to find good discounts

Cons

• No multi-band GPS
• No flashlight

The Garmin Venu 4 follows on from the Venu 3, which many considered the sweet spot between fitness tracking and everyday wear. It brings a stainless steel case, multi-band GPS and a built-in flashlight, along with fresh wellness tools like Health Status, Lifestyle Logging and more advanced coaching.

Not every change will please everyone though. Battery life dips slightly, and the move to two buttons instead of three could take some getting used to. The Venu 3 still stands as the lighter and more affordable choice, while the Venu 4 leans into a more serious training role.

Here’s how the two compare head to head.

Garmin Venu 4 vs Venu 3: Tech specs comparison

Design gets refinements and a new naming approach

Garmin has once again opted for the same two size options. But this time, it’s dropped the old naming convention. Where the third generation was split into Venu 3 (45mm) and Venu 3s (41mm), you now simply get Venu 4 and choose your size. It’s a cleaner approach and mirrors what Garmin has done with some of its other watch lines.

The 45mm Venu 4 measures 12.5 mm thick and weighs 56 grams with the band, compared to 12 mm and 47 grams on the Venu 3. That added weight comes with a shift in materials. Garmin now uses a full metal case with a stainless steel bezel and buttons, giving the watch a more premium feel than the all-polymer construction of its predecessor. No difference in thickness for the 41mm version.

This generation also switches to a two-button layout instead of three. The new setup includes a circular top button and a flat one underneath. We’re not sure why the company opted for this change. But it’s something to be aware of.

Both sizes are available in refined finishes like lunar gold with light sand or silver with citron, paired with silicone or leather bands. The AMOLED display remains sharp and vibrant. Garmin has reportedly increased brightness to match what’s available on the Forerunner 570 and 970. The 1.2 and 1.4 inch screen sizes are unchanged.

Essential reading: Top fitness trackers and health gadgets

Garmin has also included a first for the Venu series. A built-in LED flashlight now sits on the case, bringing it in line with what we’ve seen on some of Garmin’s more rugged watches. It is a feature you become addicted to once you have used it a few times.

Battery claims change, but context matters

Battery life looks slightly reduced if you compare headline figures. The 45mm Venu 4 offers up to 12 days in smartwatch mode, while the Venu 3 managed up to 14 days. With always-on display enabled, that drops to 4 days on the new model compared to 5 on the old one. Battery saver mode still pushes both into multi-week territory, but the newer device consistently trails by a small margin.

GPS runtimes follow a similar pattern. The Venu 3 lasts longer in GPS-only mode at 26 hours versus 20 on the Venu 4. But the newer watch supports multi-band GNSS, which was missing from the Venu 3 entirely. That comes with a battery hit, but offers better positional accuracy, especially in tough environments. It’s a practical trade-off depending on how and where you train.

The differences are smaller when you compare the 41mm version of Venu 4 versus Venu 3s. But you still get slightly shorter battery life.

Wellness tracking grows up a bit

Venu 4 leans more heavily into the idea of being a true wellness companion. One standout addition is the new Health Status feature. It combines heart rate variability, heart rate, skin temperature, SpO2 and respiratory rate to create a baseline of your normal state. If something’s off, the watch can flag it early. Think of it as Garmin’s answer to what platforms like Whoop and Oura already offer. Something that can let you know if you are coming down with something.

Lifestyle Logging has also been added. You can now track things like caffeine and alcohol consumption directly on the watch. These inputs get linked to your recovery, sleep and HRV trends inside Garmin Connect. It’s another nudge toward understanding how your behavior influences your metrics rather than just passive monitoring.

Sleep tools have been upgraded too. Venu 4 introduces both Sleep Alignment and Sleep Consistency. These metrics help you understand whether your bedtime routine matches your natural rhythm and how well you stick to it. It’s a more holistic view of sleep and recovery.

Plus you get a smart wake alarm. The idea here is to wake you up in the morning within a specific pre-defined window – preferably when you are in a light stage of sleep.

It’s worth noting, some of these features will be coming to older Garmin watches. Users have already started seeing Health Status appear in Garmin Connect, as well as the journaling feature.

Coaching goes beyond running

The Venu 4 brings in a full Fitness Coach that covers more than just endurance sports. You now get adaptive, heart-rate based plans for over 25 activities including rowing, HIIT, indoor cycling and walking. These adjust based on your recent recovery, effort and sleep history. Mixed-session mode has also been added, letting you track multiple activities within a single workout.

Daily suggested workouts now include walking, cycling and general fitness alongside running. Garmin Coach adds support for strength training and prebuilt cycling plans. The Venu 4 also introduces Garmin Triathlon Coach and support for structured multisport and triathlon workouts. Suggested finish line estimates and projected race time predictions round out the list.

New tools like Load Ratio, Auto Track Detection, AutoLap by timing gates, and Heat and Altitude Acclimation make the Venu 4 feel more like a Forerunner in disguise. That’s not far off the mark. This device shares much of its underlying training suite with the Forerunner 570. And now that it runs the same unified Garmin OS, you’re more likely to get future features added over time.

Training Readiness and Unified Training Status also make their way onto the Venu 4. Venu 3 includes an improved version of Training Status, but the new model ties together your sleep, recovery and effort levels in a more coherent way.

Profiles, activities and accessibility

The list of supported activities is much longer on the Venu 4. You now get triathlon, duathlon, swim/run, obstacle racing, and mixed sessions. Outdoor recreation has been boosted with modes for mountaineering, horseback riding and adventure racing. You can also track snorkeling, fishing, inline skating and gaming. Auto multisport transitions are included as well.

Sensor support has expanded too. In addition to heart rate straps, power meters, and smart trainers, the Venu 4 adds compatibility with Extended Display, Shimano Di2, club sensors, shifting systems, and even inReach. Cyclists and triathletes will get a lot more mileage out of this watch than they could from the Venu 3.

Accessibility also gets a lift. The Venu 4 adds a spoken watch face, spoken health data, and a large font UI mode. Color filters like grayscale and red-green assist have been included for users with visual impairments. These changes make the watch easier to use for a much wider range of people.

Is the Venu 4 worth the extra cost?

The Venu 4 brings a good mix of upgrades, but the higher price tag may give some buyers pause. At $550, it’s a full $100 more than the Venu 3 at launch (which will likely be discounted further now). That price gets you multi-band GPS, a flashlight, full metal housing, a modern Garmin OS platform, and a deeper set of training tools and wellness features.

But not everything moves forward. Battery life is slightly shorter, and some users may miss the third button. And at this price, Garmin is no longer competing directly with Apple, Samsung or Google in the $400 to $500 range. That creates a big gap in their lineup. The Vivoactive 6, priced at $300, now feels like the only option for those who want a pared-down Venu experience without spending nearly double.

If you’re already using a Venu 3 and mainly track steps, workouts and sleep, there’s no urgent reason to upgrade. But if you want richer analysis, sport-specific tools, broader sensor compatibility or simply a more capable platform moving forward, the Venu 4 is a clear step up.

Garmin Venu 4

View on Amazon View on Garmin

Pushing closer to serious training

Go for the Garmin Venu 4 if you want a sleeker case with tougher materials, sharper wellness tracking, and coaching that stretches well beyond casual workouts. Pass on it if you’d rather save battery life with the Venu 3, prefer the three-button setup, or don’t feel the extra $100 over the older model is worth it.

Garmin Venu 3

View on Amazon View on Garmin

Keeping it light and practical

Pick the Garmin Venu 3 if you want a lighter watch with longer battery life and all the core health and fitness features most people need. Skip it if you’re after multi-band GPS, a sturdier metal build, or the expanded coaching and wellness tools that come with the Venu 4.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

The post Garmin Venu 4 vs Venu 3: What’s actually new? appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

That’s where the comparison gets interesting. Garmin gives you the option of solar charging, ECG, detailed training insights and more control over customisation. Amazfit leaves out a few of those extras, but still offers dual-band GPS, offline maps, a bright AMOLED screen and accurate health tracking. You don’t get the same ecosystem, but you also don’t need to spend a thousand dollars.

Here’s where Amazfit holds its own and where Garmin still leads.

View Amazfit T-Rex 3 on Amazfit / Amazon. View Garmin Fenix 8 on Garmin / Amazon.

Where the T-Rex 3 Pro holds its own

Zepp Health has steadily improved its outdoor watches to the point where the differences are no longer as one-sided. The T-Rex 3 Pro delivers a lot of what people expect from top-tier gear, without leaning on a legacy name.

Zepp Health nails the value equation

Let’s start with the obvious one.

What works in Amazfit’s favour starts with the $399 price tag. You’re getting a rugged, military-tested smartwatch with serious outdoor chops for a fraction of what a Fenix 8 will cost.

That includes materials like sapphire glass, a titanium bezel, 10 ATM water resistance and a body built to withstand extreme conditions. Garmin still leads in some areas, but the T-Rex 3 Pro gets pretty close on core durability and build.

Garmin tends to charge heavily for every tier upgrade. The Fenix 8 starts at $1,000 and climbs to $1,200 for the 51mm Solar edition. There’s also the Fenix E stripped-back option at around $800, but even that sits twice above the Amazfit price-tag.

It get’s even scarier. If you go for the latest Fenix 8 Pro, the starting price jumps to $1,200 and hits $2,000 for the MicroLED configuration! Yikes.

So it’s really two different strategies. Garmin leans into ultra-premium positioning. Zepp Health tries to deliver as much as possible while keeping the T-Rex 3 Pro at a more accessible price point.

Furthermore, while both Garmin and Zepp Health currently include pretty much all features without a subscription, Garmin has introduced services like Connect+ that suggest a possible move toward more paid options in the future. Zepp Health, by contrast, continues to bundle everything into the upfront cost of the T-Rex 3 Pro.

Display, design and ruggedness hold up

The T-Rex 3 Pro comes with a 1.5-inch AMOLED screen at 480 x 480 pixels that reaches 3,000 nits of brightness. That makes it one of the brightest outdoor-ready displays available, and it manages this without putting too much strain on battery life.

Garmin’s Fenix 8 offers either a 1.4-inch AMOLED at 454 x 454 pixels with 1,000 nits of brightness or a MIP Solar panel at 260 x 260. The Fenix 8 E scales that down slightly to a 1.3-inch AMOLED at 416 x 416. You don’t get the MIP option with the Amazfit, so it’s AMOLED only, but on pure screen performance Amazfit takes the edge.

Materials are good whichever brand you choose. The T-Rex 3 Pro pairs sapphire glass with a titanium bezel and buttons, alongside a fiber-reinforced polymer case. It feels sturdy in the hand while staying lightweight at just 52 grams. The Fenix 8 starts at 73 grams and goes up depending on the build. So no big difference here.

Ruggedness is also comparable. The T-Rex 3 Pro is rated at 10 ATM with support for free-diving to 45 meters, plus scuba capability. Garmin’s Fenix 8 also offers 10 ATM resistance and adds a depth sensor for dives up to 40 meters. On paper, that makes them evenly matched for water sports, though Garmin adds a bit more depth tracking. Both can handle dust, shock and extreme environments.

Where Garmin pulls ahead is in variety. Zepp Health gives you the T-Rex 3 Pro in either 48mm or 44mm, both with AMOLED displays. Garmin offers the Fenix 8 in 43mm, 47mm and 51mm sizes, along with a choice between AMOLED and MIP Solar displays on the 47mm model. The Fenix 8 E comes in 47mm only, but it still adds another AMOLED configuration to the mix. So while Zepp Health nails the basics, Garmin gives you more flexibility to choose the exact fit and display type you want.

Features that make T-Rex 3 Pro versatile

The T-Rex 3 Pro comes with a built-in LED flashlight. A first for Zepp Health. It may seem like a small thing on paper, but it’s the kind of feature you start to miss once you’ve used it. Whether you’re hiking at night or just fumbling for something in a dark tent, having a light source on your wrist is useful. Garmin includes a flashlight on the Fenix 8, but not on the more affordable Fenix 8 E.

Amazfit also includes both a speaker and microphone on the T-Rex 3 Pro, letting you take calls, use voice assistants and hear alerts without touching your phone. Garmin offers the same on the Fenix 8, but the Fenix 8 E leaves both out. That split in feature set makes the difference more noticeable at lower price points.

Storage is another point of contrast. The T-Rex 3 Pro offers 26 GB of internal space for music and data. Garmin gives you more on the Fenix 8 with 32 GB, but the Fenix 8 E drops to 16 GB, putting Amazfit right in the middle.

Taken together, these extras make the T-Rex 3 Pro feel less like a stripped-down GPS watch and more like a true hybrid between outdoor tracker and everyday smartwatch.

It’s worth noting that both the Amazfit and Garmin use proprietary operating systems. You don’t get a wide ecosystem as you would on the Apple Watch or WearOS, but you do get excellent battery life.

Sports tracking is catching up

The T-Rex 3 Pro supports 180 sports modes, including some niche ones most people will never touch. Garmin covers just as much ground with the Fenix 8, offering a deep list of activities across outdoor, indoor and water-based sports. Both give you more than enough variety.

In my hands-on review of the T-Rex 3 Pro I tested it side-by-side for running against a Garmin. And the device held up well. GPS distance was nearly identical each and every time, and heart rate data was consistently within a beat or two. Peak values matched on multiple efforts. Zepp Health’s latest sensor setup clearly isn’t holding it back anymore.

Garmin still has the edge in post-run analysis, structured workouts, and sensor pairing. But Zepp Health now includes key metrics like VO2 Max, Training Load, and Vertical Ratio. For most users, the T-Rex 3 Pro offers tracking that’s reliable enough to train with, not just log workouts.

Battery that goes the distance

The 48mm T-Rex 3 Pro offers up to 25 days of typical use and up to 38 hours of continuous GPS tracking. That puts it near the top for AMOLED-based smartwatches in this price range. It handles daily use with notifications, activity tracking, music playback and GPS without needing to be charged every few days.

Garmin’s 47mm Fenix 8 with AMOLED delivers up to 16 days of smartwatch use, or 7 days with always-on display. GPS runtime is rated for up to 47 hours, or 37 with always-on. Switch to the MIP Solar version and those numbers go even higher. Smartwatch mode extends to 28 days with solar charging, and GPS tracking can last up to 92 hours under optimal light conditions. The Fenix 8 E is slightly more limited, with 16 days of smartwatch use and 42 hours of GPS.

Garmin still wins on raw battery longevity, especially with solar. But the T-Rex 3 Pro holds its own without needing aggressive power-saving or solar panels. Zepp Health’s software does a good job balancing features and battery, so most users will get solid endurance without having to turn things off just to make it through the week.

Navigation without added cost

The T-Rex 3 Pro offers offline maps, route guidance and point-of-interest search right out of the box. There are no subscriptions to manage and no extra payments required to unlock basic navigation tools. Everything is handled through the Zepp Health app, with support for importing GPX files and syncing planned routes.

Garmin still leads in overall mapping depth. The Fenix 8 series gives you access to rich topographic maps, turn-by-turn trail routing, and broader ecosystem sync with other Garmin devices. You can also build routes in more detail through Garmin Connect. For serious backcountry use or advanced training environments, it’s a more complete package.

But not everyone needs that level of complexity. If you’re mostly using maps for hiking, running or basic outdoor tracking, the T-Rex 3 Pro covers the fundamentals well. And it does so without adding more layers of software or steps to the process. That simplicity may appeal to users who just want reliable on-watch navigation without extra setup.

Where Garmin still leads

Garmin’s strength lies in the depth of its platform. From detailed performance charts to long-term training analysis, the tools are built for athletes who want to track progress over months, not just sessions. You can sync across devices like bike computers and satellite gear, making the ecosystem feel complete. Zepp Health has improved its app experience, but most of the value still sits on the watch itself.

Garmin also has the track record for reliability. Whether it’s mountain routes, ultra races or backcountry navigation, the Fenix 8 is built for pressure. It’s the watch people trust when the environment gets unpredictable.

In terms of health sensors, both watches cover heart rate, SpO2, temperature and stress tracking. But the Fenix 8 adds ECG support, which the T-Rex 3 Pro doesn’t offer. Still, overall accuracy across the Amazfit sensors is strong and consistent.

Garmin also gives you more control. You can fine-tune data fields, adjust activity profiles and set up the watch exactly how you want it. For users who care about those kinds of details, the flexibility is there.

For many users though, those extras won’t justify double or triple the price. The T-Rex 3 Pro may not win on every feature, but it covers enough ground to make you stop and think.

If you’re after durability, strong battery life, offline navigation and some practical extras, without locking yourself into an expensive ecosystem, this watch makes a convincing case.

View Amazfit T-Rex 3 on Amazfit / Amazon. View Garmin Fenix 8 on Garmin / Amazon.

Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro vs Garmin Fenix 8

Here is a tech specs comparison. It compares the mid size Garmin Fenix 8, the E version versus the 48mm Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

The post Can the Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro hold its own vs Garmin Fenix 8? appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.