Garmin CIRQA is the better buy for existing Garmin users and anyone who wants detailed training metrics without another mandatory annual payment. Whoop remains the stronger recovery coach, but it now has to justify a subscription costing at least $199 every year.

Garmin’s entry into the screenless tracker category was always going to invite this comparison. CIRQA covers much of the same ground as Whoop, including continuous heart rate, sleep, recovery and workout tracking, but the two companies take very different routes once the data reaches the smartphone.

The biggest difference is not the hardware

CIRQA is essentially a Garmin sports watch without the screen, GPS chip and most of the controls. It records the familiar Garmin metrics, sends them to Garmin Connect and works alongside the company’s watches and cycling computers.

CIRQA also sits between cheaper screenless trackers and more coaching-focused platforms. Our Garmin CIRQA vs Fitbit Air comparison looks at how it stacks up against this simpler and more affordable alternative.

Whoop starts from a different place. The band collects the data, but the real product is the app and the way it connects Recovery, Strain, sleep and everyday behaviour.

That distinction became clear during my Whoop review. The hardware was comfortable and easy to forget, but the more useful part was how Whoop encouraged me to pay attention to recovery instead of constantly chasing faster times and a higher VO2 max.

That opinion still applies. Whoop presents its numbers as a daily plan, while Garmin gives you a larger collection of metrics and leaves more of the interpretation to you.

CIRQA is much cheaper over time

Garmin CIRQA costs $199.99. Its main health, sleep, recovery and training features work without a Garmin Connect+ subscription.

Connect+ remains optional at $6.99 per month or $69.99 per year. It adds features including Active Intelligence, expanded dashboards and access to some coaching tools, but CIRQA does not stop working when the subscription ends. Plus, you don’t really need the subscription.

Garmin CIRQA

Screenless tracking with no required subscription

View on Amazon View on Garmin

Whoop takes the opposite approach. The tracker comes with the membership, but an active plan is required to continue using the platform.

Whoop One starts at $199 per year, while Peak costs $239. The $359 Life plan includes Whoop MG and its additional heart features.

Whoop

Recovery, strain and sleep coaching with membership

View on Whoop

That makes the long-term calculation fairly brutal. Three years with CIRQA can cost $199.99, while three years of the cheapest Whoop plan costs at least $597.

The difference grows to $717 with Peak and $1,077 with Life. Whoop therefore needs to provide continuing value every year, rather than simply offer a slightly better app.

Whoop is easier to wear and charge

CIRQA is lighter, but it takes up more space along the wrist. Its body measures 47mm from end to end, compared with 34.7mm for Whoop 5.0.

Whoop is slightly narrower but thicker, so neither device wins the comfort comparison purely from the numbers. Wrist shape, band tension and where the sensor sits will probably have more influence than a few millimetres.

CIRQA’s length looks more intimidating in comparison images than its weight suggests. It comes in at a little over 20 grams with the band, while Whoop 5.0 weighs around 26.5 grams.

My experience with Whoop suggests its woven band should remain comfortable during continuous wear. The low-profile shape also works well during activities where a normal watch becomes awkward.

Whoop has the clearer advantage when charging. Its battery lasts more than 14 days, compared with up to 10 days for CIRQA.

The Wireless PowerPack available with the higher Whoop memberships slides over the tracker while it remains on the body. CIRQA uses Garmin’s familiar charging cable and needs to come off the wrist, creating a small gap in the data each time.

Garmin gives you more conventional training tools

CIRQA supports more than 80 activity profiles, automatic workout detection and connected GPS. Its physical button can also start and stop one favourite activity without opening Garmin Connect.

The band feeds into Training Readiness, Training Status, VO2 max, recovery time, workout benefit and Garmin’s wider training-load system. It can broadcast heart rate over ANT+ and Bluetooth, which gives it a useful role alongside other Garmin devices.

Whoop supports more individual activity types, but its approach is less conventional. The app concentrates on how much Strain the workout produced and what that exertion is likely to do to tomorrow’s Recovery.

That is useful, but runners and cyclists may find Garmin’s platform more complete. Garmin Connect gives you more recognisable workout records, routes, pace data and performance trends, while Whoop is better at explaining how hard the session was for your body.

Neither band has built-in GPS or a display. Anyone who needs navigation, live pacing or detailed data fields during a run will still need a phone, sports watch or cycling computer.

Accuracy also remains an open question. CIRQA uses a modified version of Garmin’s Elevate Gen 4 optical sensor, while Whoop collects heart-rate data 26 times per second with its newer PPG hardware.

The faster sampling rate does not guarantee better results. Whoop can still struggle with wrist movement and rapid heart-rate changes, while CIRQA needs broader independent testing across running, cycling and strength sessions before it earns an accuracy win.

Whoop still explains recovery better

Where Whoop has made a name for itself is in recovery tracking. Garmin offers these metrics as well, but Whoop connects the info more effectively. Recovery, Strain and Sleep operate as parts of the same system rather than separate numbers competing for space inside an app.

Whoop can show whether you are ready to train, suggest a daily Strain target and adjust your sleep requirement around previous exercise and accumulated sleep debt. It’s simple and it works. The Journal then connects behaviours such as alcohol, caffeine, supplements and late meals with changes in Recovery.

That remains Whoop’s most useful advantage. It turns the tracker into a structured self-experiment rather than simply another source of graphs.

Garmin provides Body Battery, Training Readiness, HRV Status, stress, sleep score, recovery time and Training Status. The information is useful, but there is overlap between some of the scores, and Garmin Connect does not always explain the relationship between them particularly well.

The new Essentials section improves the situation by bringing key recovery information closer to the front of the app. Even so, Whoop remains better at reducing a complicated physiological picture into a small number of decisions.

Health tracking is closer than it looks

Both trackers record continuous heart rate, resting heart rate, HRV, respiratory rate, blood oxygen, skin temperature and sleep. Each also provides a vibration alarm, although Garmin offers a Smart Wake feature that aims to wake the user at a lighter point in the sleep cycle.

CIRQA includes abnormal heart-rate alerts, stress tracking, nap detection, menstrual tracking and sleep-based temperature data. Most of those features work without Connect+.

Standard Whoop 5.0 does not have ECG. That feature belongs to Whoop MG, which comes with the $359 annual Life membership.

MG also adds irregular heart rhythm notifications and daily blood-pressure insights where available. Those features give Whoop a higher health ceiling, but they sit in a much more expensive version of the product.

For most buyers comparing CIRQA with standard Whoop 5.0, the health sensors are not the deciding factor. The larger differences remain software, training style and cost.

Existing Garmin users have an easy decision

CIRQA makes the most sense as a companion to another Garmin device. It can handle sleep, daily health and background activity, while a Forerunner, Fenix or Edge takes over during serious training.

That keeps the data inside Garmin Connect. Users do not have to compare two recovery scores, maintain separate histories or decide whether Garmin or Whoop should act as the main authority on their training.

It also gives Garmin owners a practical way to wear a mechanical watch during the day. CIRQA can continue collecting health data on the other wrist or upper arm without displaying notifications or adding another screen.

Whoop works with services including Strava, Apple Health and Health Connect, but it remains a separate recovery platform. That is useful for people who mix devices from several brands.

Someone already paying for Whoop and using its Journal regularly may not gain much from moving immediately. Someone wearing a Garmin watch for training while paying Whoop for recovery now has a much stronger reason to consolidate.

The post Garmin CIRQA vs Whoop: One payment or a yearly subscription appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Samsung Galaxy Watch9 brings a larger battery, Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Wear Elite processor and a longer software-support period. It is the better watch for most new buyers, but the size you choose makes a surprisingly large difference to the value of the upgrade.

The 40mm Watch9 receives a substantial 20% battery-capacity increase over its Watch8 equivalent. The 44mm version gains just 10mAh, making it much harder to recommend to someone who already owns the previous model.

There is also the Galaxy Watch8 Classic to consider. It retains Samsung’s physical rotating bezel, offers twice the storage of the standard watches and has the same 445mAh battery as the larger Watch9, although it is considerably heavier and still uses Samsung’s older Exynos processor.

Galaxy Watch 9 vs 8 vs 8 Classic specifications

Samsung has changed the processor and battery, but much of the surrounding hardware is familiar. The displays, dimensions, durability ratings, storage capacity and health sensor categories are effectively unchanged between Watch9 and the standard Watch8.

On mobile, swipe across the table to see both watches.

Feature	Galaxy Watch9	Galaxy Watch8	Galaxy Watch8 Classic
Product
Case sizes	40mm and 44mm	40mm and 44mm	46mm
Dimensions	42.7 x 40.4 x 8.6mm 46.0 x 43.7 x 8.6mm	42.7 x 40.4 x 8.6mm 46.0 x 43.7 x 8.6mm	46.4 x 46.0 x 10.6mm
Weight without strap	31.5g or 34g	30g or 33.8g	63.5g
Case and controls	Armor Aluminum, two buttons	Armor Aluminum, two buttons	Stainless steel, rotating bezel and three buttons
Display	1.34 inches, 438 x 438 1.47 inches, 480 x 480	1.34 inches, 438 x 438 1.47 inches, 480 x 480	1.34 inches, 438 x 438
Peak brightness	3,000 nits	3,000 nits	3,000 nits
Processor	Snapdragon Wear Elite, 3nm	Exynos W1000, 3nm	Exynos W1000, 3nm
RAM and storage	2GB and 32GB	2GB and 32GB	2GB and 64GB
Battery	390mAh or 445mAh	325mAh or 435mAh	445mAh
Official battery estimate	Up to 30 hours with always-on display	Up to 30 hours with always-on display	Up to 30 hours with always-on display
GPS	Dual-frequency L1 and L5	Dual-frequency L1 and L5	Dual-frequency L1 and L5
Durability	5ATM, IP68 and MIL-STD-810H	5ATM, IP68 and MIL-STD-810H	5ATM, IP68 and MIL-STD-810H
Launch software	Wear OS 7 with One UI Watch 9	Wear OS 6 with One UI Watch 8	Wear OS 6 with One UI Watch 8
Expected support	Five major Wear OS upgrades, security support into 2031	Expected support into 2029	Expected support into 2029
Band compatibility	Compatible with Watch8 Dynamic Lug bands	Compatible with Watch9 bands	Compatible with Watch8 and Watch9 Dynamic Lug bands
US launch price, Bluetooth	$379.99 or $409.99	$349.99 or $379.99	$499.99
US launch price, LTE	$429.99 or $459.99	$399.99 or $429.99	$549.99

The battery upgrade depends on the size

Battery capacity is the most important difference, but the headline requires some qualification. Samsung has not improved the two Watch9 sizes by anything close to the same amount.

The 40mm Watch9 moves from 325mAh to 390mAh. That is an exact 20% increase and should provide more breathing room for sleep tracking, workouts and notifications on the smaller watch.

The 44mm version rises from 435mAh to 445mAh. That works out to an increase of only 2.3%, which is unlikely to transform how frequently it needs charging.

Most comparisons describe Watch9 as simply having a larger battery. Someone buying the 40mm model, however, benefits more. A 44mm buyer is getting almost the same battery as before.

Samsung still gives the watches a headline estimate of up to 30 hours with the always-on display enabled and 40 hours with it switched off. The larger battery therefore should not be interpreted as a guaranteed 20% improvement in actual runtime.

Early evidence is mixed. A ComputerBild test of the 40mm Watch9 produced a little over 24 hours, despite the larger battery, which was shorter than the publication recorded from its predecessor.

One result cannot describe every combination of settings, workouts and network use. It does show why capacity and endurance should not be treated as interchangeable figures, especially when the new Snapdragon platform may distribute power differently from Samsung’s Exynos chip.

Charging speed has not changed significantly either. Short top-ups remain useful, but Watch9 does not introduce the kind of charging improvement that would alter the daily routine on its own.

Snapdragon Wear Elite is the bigger long-term change

Watch9 replaces Samsung’s Exynos W1000 with Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Wear Elite platform. Both processors are manufactured using a 3nm process, but the Qualcomm chip introduces a different architecture and low-power system.

The Exynos W1000 already makes Watch8 feel responsive during ordinary use. Notifications, Samsung Health, maps and most apps do not suddenly become difficult simply because a newer processor exists.

Watch9 should still have advantages in app loading, voice processing and maintaining performance as Wear OS becomes more demanding. The new platform may also provide Samsung with more room for future on-device health analysis and Gemini features.

Battery efficiency is less certain. The Snapdragon name alone does not guarantee longer endurance, particularly when Samsung’s official runtime estimate has remained unchanged and the first independent results have not shown a clear breakthrough.

The stronger argument for the new chip is longevity. Samsung is promising five major Wear OS upgrades for Watch9, with security support expected to continue into 2031, giving it a longer runway than the Watch8 generation.

For someone who replaces a watch every two or three years, that difference may have little practical value. Anyone planning to keep it for four or five years has a better reason to pay extra for Watch9.

Watch8 Classic remains a very different proposition

Galaxy Watch8 Classic is not simply a larger Watch8. Its stainless-steel case, physical rotating bezel, additional Quick Button and 64GB of storage give it a distinct identity.

The rotating bezel remains one of Samsung’s best watch controls. It makes scrolling through menus and notifications easy without covering the screen with a finger, and it gives the Classic a more conventional watch-like feel.

There are substantial compromises. The Classic weighs 63.5g before the strap is attached, compared with 34g for the 44mm Watch9, and its 10.6mm case is noticeably thicker than the 8.6mm standard models.

It also uses a 1.34-inch display, the same screen size as the 40mm watches, despite having a 46mm case. The physical bezel occupies space that Samsung uses for additional display area on the 44mm Watch9 and Watch8.

Battery capacity is more competitive. Watch8 Classic has a 445mAh cell, matching the larger Watch9 and slightly exceeding the 44mm Watch8.

Storage doubles from 32GB to 64GB, which is helpful for offline music, apps and downloaded media. It retains the Exynos W1000, however, so buyers do not receive Watch9’s new processor or extended support period.

At its $499.99 starting price, the Classic is difficult to recommend purely on specifications. It makes the most sense when the rotating bezel and stainless-steel construction are features someone actively wants, rather than extras that merely sound useful.

The design has barely changed

Samsung has retained the cushion-shaped case introduced with Watch8. The circular display sits inside a softly squared outer frame, producing a design that falls somewhere between a conventional Galaxy Watch and the larger Ultra.

Watch9 uses the same 40mm and 44mm sizes and the same 8.6mm thickness. The case is slightly heavier, rising from 30g to 31.5g at 40mm and from 33.8g to 34g at 44mm.

Those increases are too small to affect comfort. Both standard watches remain much easier to wear overnight than Watch8 Classic or either Galaxy Watch Ultra generation.

The design continues to divide opinion. Some will find the cushion shape more distinctive than Samsung’s older fully circular cases, while others will see little reason to replace a Watch8 with something that looks almost identical.

Watch9 does introduce Cream as a 40mm color, while the larger version is available in Graphite and Silver. Color availability is a minor buying consideration rather than an upgrade reason.

The displays are effectively identical

Watch9 retains the same display sizes, resolutions and claimed 3,000-nit peak brightness as Watch8. The 40mm models use a 1.34-inch, 438 x 438 panel, while the 44mm versions use a 1.47-inch, 480 x 480 panel.

Both generations use Super AMOLED panels protected by sapphire crystal. Visibility, sharpness and always-on watch faces should therefore look very similar.

The Classic also reaches 3,000 nits, but its physical bezel limits it to the smaller 1.34-inch display. Buyers are trading screen area for tactile control rather than gaining both.

The unchanged displays reinforce the broader upgrade picture. Watch9 improves the platform underneath the screen, but it does not provide a visibly larger, brighter or sharper interface.

Health tracking is mostly about interpretation

Samsung lists the same core sensor categories across all three watches. These include optical heart-rate monitoring, ECG, bioelectrical impedance analysis, blood oxygen, temperature, accelerometer, gyroscope, barometer, compass and ambient light sensing.

Watch9 launches with additional tools including Vitals, Heart Health Score and Fitness Index. These features organize and interpret signals the watch is already collecting rather than measuring an entirely new type of health data.

Vitals builds a baseline using overnight measurements and looks for changes from someone’s usual patterns. Heart Health Score and Fitness Index apply further analysis to existing cardiovascular and activity information.

That may make the presentation more useful, but it is not a completely new health-sensing platform. Some of these software features are also expected to reach older watches through Samsung Health updates, although availability and timing may differ by device and region.

Watch8 already provides Running Coach, Energy Score, sleep coaching, Bedtime Guidance, Antioxidant Index and Vascular Load in supported markets. The everyday health experience is therefore much closer than Samsung’s Watch9 feature list initially suggests.

The usual restrictions remain. Some health functions require a compatible Samsung Galaxy phone, and ECG, blood-pressure and sleep-apnea features depend on local regulatory approval.

GPS and fitness hardware have not moved far

All three models support dual-frequency L1 and L5 GPS. This was already one of Watch8’s more valuable improvements, particularly when tracking through built-up areas or beneath heavy tree cover.

Watch9 does not introduce a clearly different GPS system in Samsung’s specifications. Any change in route accuracy or power consumption would therefore be more likely to come from software, antenna tuning or the Snapdragon platform than a new headline capability.

The same applies to workout tracking. Samsung Health remains well suited to general fitness, running plans, sleep tracking and daily activity, but Watch9 does not suddenly turn the standard Galaxy Watch into a specialist endurance device.

The more revealing buying debate continues to be Samsung against Garmin rather than Watch9 against Watch8. Samsung is stronger for apps, calls, messaging and everyday phone integration, while specialist sports watches generally provide longer endurance and deeper training analysis.

Watch8 bands still fit Watch9

Samsung has retained the Dynamic Lug System used by the Watch8 generation. Compatible Watch8 and Watch8 Classic bands can therefore be used with Watch9, and Samsung is selling newer bands as compatible across the three models.

That removes a potential hidden upgrade cost for existing owners. Someone who has already bought several Watch8 bands does not need to replace the collection when moving to Watch9.

Galaxy Watch Ultra bands use a different connection and are not interchangeable. The compatibility applies to the standard Watch8, Watch8 Classic and Watch9 Dynamic Lug families.

Price may matter more than the specifications

Galaxy Watch9 starts at $379.99 for the 40mm Bluetooth model and $409.99 at 44mm. Adding LTE increases either price by $50.

Watch8 launched at $349.99 and $379.99, making Watch9 officially $30 more expensive at each size. That is a reasonable premium for the Snapdragon processor, larger 40mm battery and longer support period.

Retail discounts create a different comparison. Samsung has already listed Watch8 from around $299.99, and third-party prices may fall further as retailers clear older stock.

At 40mm, paying around $50 to $80 more for Watch9 is defensible because the battery increase is substantial. Once the difference passes roughly $100, Watch8 becomes the stronger value unless long-term software support is especially important.

At 44mm, the older watch becomes attractive sooner. Watch9 adds just 10mAh, so the processor and support period must do most of the work when justifying the extra cost.

Watch8 Classic starts at $499.99, or $549.99 with LTE. At that price, it should be chosen for its bezel, steel construction and 64GB storage rather than on the assumption that “Classic” means universally better.

Trade-in offers can, of course, overturn any of these calculations. So they are worth checking out.

Samsung’s standard watches are not the only models to receive a major update this year. Our full Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Ultra comparison looks at the larger battery, faster charging, slimmer case and new Snapdragon processor, as well as whether the changes justify upgrading from the original Ultra.

The post Samsung Galaxy Watch9 vs Watch8: How they stack up appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 improves the original with a 35% larger battery, much faster charging, a slimmer body, a brighter display and Qualcomm’s new Snapdragon Wear Elite chip. It is clearly the better watch for a new buyer, but the case for upgrading from an existing Galaxy Watch Ultra is far less convincing.

Worth clarifying, there are actually two original Ultra models

Samsung launched the first Galaxy Watch Ultra in 2024, then refreshed it in 2025. The second release added Titanium Blue and increased storage from 32GB to 64GB, but the processor, battery, display and sensor selection remained virtually unchanged.

This distinction is important when comparing storage. Ultra 2 doubles the capacity of the 2024 model, but it offers no storage advantage over the 2025 Ultra, which already comes with 64GB.

For most of this comparison, the 2024 and 2025 versions can be treated as the same watch. Where storage and colour options differ, the model year needs to be taken into account.

With that in mind, let’s continue.

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Ultra specifications

The headline specifications point to a substantial hardware update, but not every difference will be equally noticeable in daily use. The larger battery, faster charging and slimmer case should have the clearest impact, while the new processor and brighter display are more likely to feel like useful refinements.

On mobile, swipe across the table to see both watches.

Feature	Galaxy Watch Ultra 2	Galaxy Watch Ultra
Product image
Case size	47.4 × 47.1 × 10.7mm	47.1 × 47.4 × 12.1mm
Weight without strap	61.5g	60.5g
Display	1.52-inch AMOLED, 498 × 498	1.47-inch AMOLED, 480 × 480
Peak brightness	5,000 nits	3,000 nits
Processor	Snapdragon Wear Elite	Exynos W1000
RAM	2GB	2GB
Storage	64GB	32GB in 2024, 64GB in 2025
Battery	800mAh	590mAh
Fast charging	Up to 40% in around 30 minutes	Not supported
GPS	Dual-frequency L1 and L5	Dual-frequency L1 and L5
Water protection	10ATM and IP69K	10ATM and IP68
Diving certification	EN13319	None
US launch price	$699	$649 for the 2025 model

It looks the same but should wear better

From the front, Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 could easily be mistaken for the original. Samsung has retained the 47mm cushion-shaped titanium case, circular display, three physical buttons and distinctive orange Quick Button.

The significant change appears when the watches are viewed from the side. Ultra 2 measures 10.7mm thick, down from 12.1mm, which works out to a reduction of around 12%.

That does not turn it into a small watch. The width and height have barely changed, so it will still dominate a smaller wrist and may feel excessive for sleep tracking.

It should, however, sit closer to the skin and catch sleeves less often. The redesigned Marine Band is also softer and thinner, with an Air Pocket structure intended to help moisture escape.

One detail that has already been reported incorrectly is the weight. Ultra 2 weighs 61.5g without its strap, one gram more than the original, so the watch itself is not lighter.

Samsung’s lighter band may reduce the total weight on the wrist, but that is not the same as making the case lighter. Existing Ultra bands remain compatible, so owners do not need to replace their current collection.

Battery is the biggest reason to choose Ultra 2

Samsung has increased capacity from 590mAh to 800mAh, a jump of around 35.6%. That is easily the largest practical upgrade and the main reason some existing owners are considering replacing their watches.

The official runtime figures create a slightly odd situation. Samsung advertises up to 60 hours with the always-on display enabled and up to 80 hours with it switched off, even though the battery is substantially larger.

As we noted in our earlier look at Samsung’s Ultra 2 battery claims, the extra capacity does not automatically translate into a similar increase in advertised endurance. The brighter display, new processor, LTE modem, health processing and outdoor features may use some of that additional energy.

There should still be more breathing room during normal use. The larger cell should be particularly helpful during GPS workouts, LTE sessions and overnight tracking, where the original Ultra’s battery can feel more restrictive.

The difference may also feel larger for someone upgrading from a 2024 Ultra. A battery that has already gone through two years of regular charging will no longer perform like a new 590mAh cell, so the real comparison may be 800mAh against an ageing battery rather than the original factory specification.

Fast charging could have an equally noticeable effect. Ultra 2 can reach up to 40% in around 30 minutes, while Ultra has slower charging, with no equivalent 30-minute claim.

That makes it easier to top up the watch while showering, having breakfast or getting ready for bed. It also reduces the usual conflict between charging and collecting overnight sleep data.

Snapdragon Wear Elite is the unknown quantity

Ultra 2 moves from Samsung’s Exynos W1000 to Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Wear Elite. Both use a 3nm manufacturing process, but Qualcomm’s platform introduces a different CPU layout, on-device AI hardware and a redesigned low-power system.

Samsung says apps launch faster and interactions feel smoother. That sounds good, although the Exynos W1000 is already quick enough for normal watch use and early demonstrations do not show an enormous difference.

Efficiency could be more important than raw speed. LTE, GPS, background health tracking and the always-on display place a steady load on a smartwatch, so even modest power savings could improve endurance.

The new chip may also give Samsung more headroom for future health analysis and AI features. We previously looked at Samsung’s switch to Snapdragon Wear Elite, but the final judgement will depend on battery tests, heat, GPS performance and long-term software support.

The display is larger and much brighter

Samsung has reduced the bezel slightly, increasing the screen from 1.47 to 1.52 inches without making the case wider. Resolution moves from 480 x 480 to 498 x 498 pixels, so the difference in sharpness will probably be difficult to spot.

Brightness rises from 3,000 to 5,000 nits. That should improve visibility under strong sunlight and may be useful when glancing at workout data outdoors.

There is some small print behind the 5,000-nit figure, though. Samsung describes it as localised peak brightness under high ambient light, so the entire display will not necessarily sit at that level.

The original Ultra already has a bright screen, which means this is more refinement than rescue operation. It should be most noticeable on exposed trails, bright summer runs and underwater.

Health tracking is not a complete sensor overhaul

Samsung has packed broadly the same sensor categories on both watches, including its BioActive package, skin temperature, accelerometer, barometer, gyroscope, compass and ambient light sensor. Ultra 2 still supports ECG, body composition, blood oxygen, heart rate and the usual Samsung Health tools.

The company describes the BioActive sensor as upgraded on the Ultra 2 product page, but it does not provide much detail on what has changed internally. The closer fit due to the thinner case may contribute to better readings.

Many of Samsung’s newer health tools are software-led rather than dependent on new hardware. Vitals, Heart Health Score, Fitness Index and other features use signals that Galaxy Watches were already collecting.

Several of these tools were announced before Ultra 2 and are part of Samsung’s wider health platform. Our earlier coverage of the new Galaxy Watch health features explains how Vitals builds a personal baseline from overnight heart rate, HRV, breathing, temperature and blood oxygen.

Diving is the clearest new capability

Both watches carry a 10ATM rating, but Ultra 2 steps up from IP68 to IP69K and gains EN13319 certification. The IP69K rating adds protection against high-pressure and high-temperature water jets, while EN13319 covers depth and time instruments used for diving.

Ultra 2 can automatically show depth, dive duration and water temperature after entering the water. Samsung rates it for diving down to 40 metres, while more advanced software developed with Mares is scheduled to arrive later in 2026.

This is a real functional difference rather than a specification created for marketing. Anyone who plans to use a Galaxy Watch for recreational diving should choose Ultra 2.

For everyone else, IP69K is reassuring but unlikely to change daily use. The original Ultra is already rated to 10ATM, so Ultra 2 does not increase the headline pressure rating beyond 100 metres.

Trail running gets more attention

Ultra 2 introduces a dedicated Trail Run mode with elevation, climbing progress and terrain-related information. It also adds hydration guidance that estimates sweat loss relative to body weight and suggests when to drink.

This does not mean the watch directly measures hydration or sweat composition. It uses workout and personal data to estimate fluid loss, which can still be useful but should not be confused with a new hydration sensor.

Samsung also retains GPX navigation, dual-frequency GPS and climbing guidance. Those features make Ultra 2 a more credible outdoor watch, especially when combined with the larger battery.

It still approaches the category as a smartwatch first. Garmin and Coros offer deeper navigation, recovery and training systems, while Samsung remains stronger for apps, calls, messaging and integration with a Galaxy phone.

That same division appears repeatedly in owner discussions. People interested mainly in training continue to look towards Garmin, while those who want a watch that can replace more phone functions tend to favour Samsung.

Price could decide the comparison

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 starts at $699 in the US, while the 2025 Ultra launched at $649. A $50 increase looks reasonable considering the upgrades.

The calculation changes once retailers discount the older model. If the price gap reaches several hundred dollars, the original Ultra begins to look much more attractive.

Existing owners are looking at the decision in much the same way. Many appear willing to upgrade only when trade-in offers bring the cost down substantially, while others see no point paying again for a watch that looks and behaves much like the one already on their wrist.

That is probably the right way to approach it. Ultra 2 is better hardware, but the value of those improvements depends heavily on what someone already owns and what the upgrade actually costs.

Buyers who do not need the Ultra’s larger case and outdoor focus should also look at our Samsung Galaxy Watch9 vs Watch8 comparison. It covers the battery changes, Snapdragon Wear Elite processor and whether the standard Watch9 offers enough to justify upgrading from Watch8.

The post Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Ultra: All the differences explained appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Garmin launched CIRQA today, giving Fitbit Air a direct rival yet in the growing screen-less tracker category. Fitbit Air remains smaller, lighter and half the price, while CIRQA offers deeper training tools, longer battery life and tight integration with existing hardware.

Taking inspiration from Whoop, both devices collect health and activity data without putting another display on your wrist. Neither has built-in GPS, so outdoor routes depend on a connected phone, and both move most settings and data into their respective smartphone apps.

Those are the main similarities. What follows are the main differences.

Fitbit Air is smaller and lighter

Fitbit Air is the more discreet device. It weighs a mere 12 grams with its band, compared with 20 grams for CIRQA, and its narrower module should be easier to forget about during sleep and everyday wear.

That comfort was one of the strongest points in my Fitbit Air review. CIRQA is still compact compared with a Garmin watch, but its wider fabric band and larger module give it more of a Whoop-style appearance. In fact, it uses bands with 24mm width – larger than Whoop.

If you buy the Fitbit, it is a one-size-fits-all affair. With Garmin, you can choose between S/M and L/XL bands.

Both trackers can be worn away from the wrist. Garmin officially supports CIRQA on the upper arm and sells accessory bands for that, while I have also tested Fitbit Air on the wrist, ankle and upper arm, despite Google currently treating it as a wrist-based device. 

CIRQA has a physical button

CIRQA’s physical button gives the band several controls that Fitbit Air lacks. One press starts or stops a favourite activity selected in Garmin Connect, with vibration and LED feedback confirming the action. Only one activity can be assigned to the button, while other profiles still need to be launched through the app.

The button can also activate Bluetooth pairing and start or stop heart-rate broadcasting to a compatible Garmin watch or Edge computer. When an alarm goes off, a short press snoozes it and holding the button dismisses it. It can also stop the vibration triggered through Find My Band.

Fitbit Air has no physical controls. It relies on automatic activity detection and the Google Health app, which gives it a cleaner design but makes it more dependent on the phone.

Fitbit Air has more sensors

Fitbit Air has the slightly broader documented sensor package. Alongside optical heart-rate and SpO2 sensors, it includes an accelerometer, gyroscope and device temperature sensor for tracking skin-temperature variation.

Garmin CIRQA

Screenless tracking with no required subscription

View on Amazon View on Garmin

Fitbit Air also supports passive irregular rhythm notifications. CIRQA does not provide this. Nor does it include ECG, so neither device provides an on-demand ECG reading from the band.

What CIRQA covers is continuous heart rate, stress, respiration, skin temperature and Pulse Ox. Garmin gets more value from combining its core sensor data with established metrics such as Body Battery, HRV Status and Sleep Coach.

CIRQA integrates more deeply with existing training hardware

This is CIRQA’s biggest advantage. It can serve as the Primary Wearable for sleep, steps and daily health data, while a Garmin watch or Edge remains the Primary Training Device for workouts, GPS and training analysis. 

CIRQA can also broadcast heart rate to compatible Garmin hardware. A cyclist could wear it on the upper arm and send live heart-rate data to an Edge computer, while a runner could use a Garmin watch for the workout and CIRQA for the rest of the day.

Fitbit Air works well as a passive second tracker, something I explored when wearing Fitbit Air alongside a Garmin. However, Google Health does not provide the same direct relationship between a passive band and dedicated training hardware.

CIRQA lasts longer between charges

Garmin quotes up to 10 days for CIRQA, compared with up to seven days for Fitbit Air. Both take around 90 minutes to charge fully, although Fitbit Air can recover roughly one day of battery life from a five-minute top-up.

The difference is useful, but not enormous. Features such connected GPS and prolonged heart-rate broadcasting will reduce CIRQA’s real-world result, while Fitbit Air already proved easy to keep charged during my testing.

Fitbit Air costs half as much

Neither device will break the bank. Fitbit Air starts at $99.99, while CIRQA costs $199.99. The extra $100 from buys CIRQA’s physical button, longer battery life, official upper-arm option and much deeper ecosystem integration. It does not buy a broader sensor package, a display or built-in GPS.

There is an optional subscription for the Fitbit, but you will be just fine without it. Most of the important stuff is free including core health, sleep and activity tracking.

Garmin also has an optional Connect+ subscription in the app which you do not really need. Most of the features work without this, except Workout and Training Plans, live activity, manual lap during activities and meditation. Which is great for those that want to use CIRQA as a second device to pair with their primary Garmin watch.

If you do opt for a subscription, Connect+ will set you back $69 per year, compared with $99 per year for Fitbit Premium. But, as mentioned, you don’t really need either.

The post CIRQA vs Fitbit Air: Garmin wins on training, Google wins on value appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

On a 7.5k outdoor run, the Amazfit Balance 3 practically trailed a high-end Garmin Forerunner by just 30 meters, keeping pace on heart rate and cadence too. The real divide only cropped up when looking at elevation, training load, and how both watches actually judged the total effort.

A strong result where it counts

I tested the newly released Amazfit Balance 3 against a high-end Garmin Forerunner during a 7.5km run in sweltering European heat, with temperatures above 30°C. Garmin recorded 7.53km, while the Amazfit came in at 7.50km. That is a difference of just 30 metres across the full run, which is an excellent result for the Balance 3.

The Garmin logged a total time of 44:44, while the Amazfit showed 45:14.99 for workout time. That difference needs a little context. At the start of the run I was fiddling with the Balance 3 controls, so the first kilometre was slightly messy on the Amazfit side. That shows up clearly in the lap data.

Garmin recorded the first kilometre at 5:48/km. Amazfit had it at 6:12/km. After that, the two watches were on par. Kilometre two was 5:53/km on both. Kilometre three was 6:00/km on both. Kilometre four was 5:57/km on both. You get the idea.

That makes the headline average pace look a little worse for Amazfit than the actual run suggests. Garmin finished with an average pace of 5:56/km, while Balance 3 showed 6:01/km. But remove the untidy start from the mental calculation and the Balance 3 looks much more convincing.

Heart rate was better than expected

The heart rate result was just as good. Balance 3 is a large watch and I have small wrists, so I was not expecting miracles from the optical sensor. Large watches can move more during runs if the fit is not right, especially when the case has more surface area sitting above the wrist.

But the Balance 3 is also relatively thin, and that seems to help. It sat better than I expected and the numbers were very close to Garmin. The Forerunner recorded an average heart rate of 146 bpm and a max of 162 bpm. The Amazfit recorded 144 bpm average and the same 162 bpm max.

That is a strong showing. It does not prove the Balance 3 will match Garmin in every workout, especially during intervals, cold weather runs or anything with lots of wrist movement. But for this steady outdoor effort, the heart rate data was more than good enough.

The cadence numbers also lined up well. Garmin recorded 176 spm average cadence and Amazfit recorded 175 spm. Stride length was identical at 0.94m. Ground contact time was close too, with Garmin at 259ms and Amazfit at 253ms.

Vertical metrics were not quite as tight. Garmin showed 8.0cm vertical oscillation and 8.4% vertical ratio. Amazfit showed 8.6cm and 9.2%. That is not wildly off, but I would treat those numbers as directional rather than directly interchangeable between platforms.

The watch feels different from older Amazfit models

The Balance 3 is a good-looking watch. The display is large, sharp and easy to read outdoors, which helps during a run when you only want a quick glance rather than a stare-down with your wrist. It feels more polished on the wrist than many sporty watches, without looking like a fragile dress watch.

What’s worth noting is that this model has three buttons plus a rotating crown, which makes it feel different from other Amazfit watches. That is partly useful, because physical controls make sense for sport. But there is also a learning curve, and that explains part of my messy start.

Zepp OS 6 also changes the feel of the watch. The design is slightly different from previous versions and the interface takes a little adjustment. It is not difficult, but it is not something I would judge after five minutes either. The hardware is strong, but the interaction model needs a few runs before it becomes second nature.

Garmin still wins on interpretation

The bigger gap was not distance, pace or heart rate. It was interpretation. Garmin rated the workout as threshold, high aerobic, with a 3.7 aerobic training effect, 0.0 anaerobic effect and an exercise load of 134. Amazfit rated the same run much harder, with 5.0 aerobic training effect, 3.1 anaerobic training effect and a training load of 335.

That is a major difference. The heart rate data was close, so this looks like an algorithmic difference rather than a sensor problem. Garmin saw a controlled threshold-type effort. Amazfit treated it as a much heavier session.

Granted, Garmin has a lot more data on my as I have been wearing their watch for years. So I suspect that is part of the reason it judged my effort differently.

Power was also different. Garmin recorded 316W average and 513W max, with wind data enabled. Amazfit showed 300W average and 367W max. Running power is still very platform-specific, so I would not read too much into the absolute numbers. It is better used for trend tracking inside the same ecosystem.

Elevation was another mismatch. Garmin recorded 49m ascent and 26m descent. Amazfit recorded 6m gain and 4m loss. The route was mostly flat around the lake, so the Amazfit figure is more plausible.

Early verdict

This was a better result for the Amazfit Balance 3 than I expected. GPS distance was almost spot on, heart rate held up well, cadence was basically identical and the lap pacing after the first kilometre was very close to Garmin.

The caveat is that Garmin still feels stronger once you move beyond raw tracking. Its training effect, load, power and elevation handling tell a more familiar story for serious training analysis. Amazfit gives you a lot of data, but some of the interpretation still feels more aggressive.

For most runners, the Balance 3 did the core job well here. It tracked the route accurately, kept heart rate close and produced usable running dynamics. For those who rely heavily on training load and performance modelling, Garmin still has the edge. But with each passing year, Zepp Health is reducing that gap.

Looking for the complete picture? Read my full Amazfit Balance 3 review, covering design, battery life, health tracking, sports features and Zepp OS 6.

View Balance 3 on Zepp Health, Amazon.

The post I ran 7.5K with Amazfit Balance 3 vs Garmin side by side appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The contrast is pretty obvious. RingConn gives you a better deal as a physical product, but Oura takes the win for its software experience.

The price difference is bigger than it looks

Oura Ring 5 starts at $399, but that only tells part of the story. Silver and Black are the entry-level finishes, while Gold, Deep Rose, Stealth and Brushed Silver rise to $499. The full app experience also needs Oura Membership, which costs $5.99 per month or $69.99 per year in the US.

RingConn Gen 3*

Order now

That subscription might seem small at first, but it stacks up fast and drives the total price way past the cost of the actual hardware. Over three years, the basic Oura Ring 5 ends up costing around $609 if you pay for the membership annually, or roughly $615 if you pay month to month. If you pick one of the premium $499 finishes, your three-year total climbs to about $709 with the annual plan.

RingConn Gen 3 keeps things much simpler. The hardware costs roughly the same as the lower cost Oura. But it comes with the charging case, and does not require a subscription, meaning the long-term cost is exactly what you pay at checkout.

This highlights the first major divide between the two. RingConn sells you a finished hardware product, while Oura uses the ring as a gateway into a paid health platform.

RingConn has the battery advantage

RingConn Gen 3 lasts up to 14 days, depending on settings. In my own review testing, that claim held up well, delivering roughly two weeks of use from a single charge.

Oura Ring 5 is rated for 6 to 9 days. That is still respectable by wearable standards, but it sits a clear step behind RingConn. For sleep and recovery tracking, longer battery life means fewer charging gaps and fewer lost nights of data.

Oura Ring 5*

Order now

Charging setups differ too. RingConn includes a portable charging case right in the box. Oura gives you a standard charging dock, making its charging case an optional extra. That m

Oura has the cleaner design

Oura Ring 5 has a slight design advantage. It is a fraction thinner and lighter, measuring 2.28mm thick and starting from just 2g. RingConn Gen 3 comes in at 2.3mm thick and weighs between 2.5g and 3.5g.

The build quality differs too. Oura features a full titanium exterior and interior with a superhard PVD coating, while RingConn Gen 3 combines titanium with epoxy resin. RingConn still feels comfortable and well made, but Oura delivers a cleaner, jewelry-style construction.

In my review, I did not find RingConn’s extra thickness noticeable, even with the larger battery and vibration motor. But Oura has the design edge if the buyer wants the slimmer, lighter ring with the more premium material finish.

RingConn offers larger sizes

RingConn Gen 3 comes in sizes 6 to 15, while Oura Ring 5 stops at size 13.

That wider range gives RingConn a clear advantage if you have larger fingers. It also offers more flexibility if you like to swap your ring between different fingers depending on comfort, hot weather swelling, or training sessions.

If you own an older version of the RingConn and plan to upgrade, definitely order the new sizing kit first. The sizes changed slightly for this latest generation, so your old size might not match up perfectly.

Oura has the stronger app

Oura takes its biggest win in the software department. The app looks more polished, feels easier to understand, and does a much better job of turning raw numbers into a clear story about your daily health.

It also brings a stronger ecosystem to the table. Oura offers more integrations, better retail visibility, and deeper links with popular health platforms. For women’s health tracking specifically, the app ecosystem gives Oura a massive advantage.

RingConn still delivers all the vital stats. You get sleep, recovery, heart rate, HRV, temperature trends, SpO2, and Vascular Trend data, which gives you plenty of detail for day-to-day health tracking.

Where RingConn falls a bit short is interpretation. The app still needs to do a better job of explaining what changed and what actually deserves your attention. Oura stands out here, offering a cleaner, more intuitive daily readout for sleep, readiness, stress, and activity.

RingConn has vibration alerts

RingConn Gen 3 packs a built-in vibration motor, something Oura Ring 5 simply does not have.

This gives RingConn a unique feature that Oura cannot match right now. The buzz feels discreet and works well when it triggers, though the functionality still needs some polish. Alerts can be inconsistent, and the most obvious missing feature is a proper wake-up alarm, so it definitely feels like a work in progress.

Oura Ring 5*

Order now

RingConn plans to roll out vibration alarm features through over-the-air updates in late 2026. If the company executes this well, it could easily become one of the most useful everyday features on the Gen 3.

Vascular Trend gives RingConn a different health angle

RingConn Gen 3 brings one specific metric to the table that Oura does not directly match. The Vascular Trend feature monitors long-term changes in your vascular health.

That gives RingConn a more specialized health focus. You will not just check this stat once and forget about it, as the trend line becomes way more useful over time once the ring establishes your personal baseline.

RingConn Gen 3*

Order now

Oura offers a broader overall suite of heart-health tools and does a superior job of blending different signals into its main app interface. RingConn takes a more direct approach, which gives the Gen 3 a distinct identity centered on long-term wellness rather than making it look like a budget alternative to Oura.

Neither ring is the right sports watch replacement

RingConn Gen 3 handles basic daily activity just fine. The step count works well enough for normal use, and the ring gives you helpful movement context to pair with your sleep and recovery data.

Workout tracking is where you need to keep expectations realistic. Distance accuracy comes close enough on outdoor runs, but tracking heart rate from a finger gets tough to trust once your intensity rises. Grip, constant hand movement, and changing blood flow all create major challenges for optical sensors inside a ring.

Oura Ring 5 brings improved activity features to the table, but it hits the exact same hardware limitations. Smart rings perform best as passive health and recovery trackers. For serious training sessions, a dedicated sports watch or a chest strap still makes a lot more sense.

Tech specs comparison

The post RingConn Gen 3 looks like the smarter ownership choice vs Oura Ring 5 appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

I took Fitbit Air out for a 5K run against a Garmin, mainly to see whether Google’s screenless tracker could keep up on the basics. It did better than expected, especially on heart rate, although the experience still feels very different from running with a proper sports watch.

The test was simple enough. I wore Fitbit Air for a 5K run and compared the results against a high-end Garmin Forerunner, using the same route around central London in warm conditions. This was not a lab test and I would not pretend otherwise, but it was a useful real-world check of how close the two platforms come when you head outside for a normal run.

The Garmin recorded 4.96km, with an average pace of 6:01/km. Fitbit Air logged 4.92km, with a listed pace of 6:00/km. That is close enough to be encouraging, particularly given that Fitbit Air relies on Connected GPS rather than built-in GPS.

The heart rate result was the part that stood out most. Garmin showed an average heart rate of 135 bpm and a maximum of 147 bpm. Fitbit Air also showed an average of 135 bpm, with a maximum of 146 bpm. For a small, lightweight screenless device, that is a very solid match.

Running without a screen feels odd

The biggest difference is not the numbers. It is the feel of the run. Fitbit Air has no screen, so you do not get that glance-at-the-wrist habit that comes naturally with a Garmin.

You need to start the run from the smartphone app. In theory, you can still look at your phone during the session for live stats, but that changes the rhythm of the run. It makes the Fitbit Air feel less like a sports watch alternative and more like a passive tracker that happens to handle workouts.

Fitbit Air*

Order now

That can be good or bad, depending on what you want. I found it slightly strange at first, because I am used to checking pace, heart rate and distance mid-run. After a while, though, it was also quite freeing. There is something clean about just running without a small dashboard on your wrist nagging for attention.

Still, anyone training to a pace target will feel the limitation quickly. A screenless device can work nicely for casual runs and background tracking, but it is less useful when you want to adjust effort in real time. Garmin wins that part before the run even starts.

The Fitbit Air is almost forgettable on the wrist

The upside of the Fitbit Air design is comfort. It is very light on the wrist and almost disappears once you start moving. That is not a small thing for people who dislike wearing larger watches while running.

Garmin gives you more data and more control, but it also feels like a watch. Fitbit Air feels closer to a simple band or pod. That makes it easier to imagine wearing it all day and all night, which is clearly the broader idea behind the device.

On this run, the lack of bulk was noticeable in a good way. I did not think about it once after starting. For a device built around passive health and fitness tracking, that is probably the point.

The core stats were surprisingly close

The headline comparison is tighter than I expected. Fitbit Air came in 40 metres shorter than Garmin, which is a small difference over a 5K effort. An identical 135 bpm average and only a 1 bpm difference in max heart rate is about as close as you could reasonably hope for in a casual field test.

That is a solid result for a small, screenless tracker using Connected GPS. For the basics most people check after a run, namely distance, pace, heart rate and calories, Fitbit Air held up well.

The gap appears when you look beyond those headline numbers. Garmin gives much more training context, including training effect, exercise load, stamina, power, cadence, stride length and running dynamics.

Fitbit Air keeps things much simpler. The stats don’t go as deep – and in a sense the smartphone app feels like it is still work in progress. This is where Google has some work to do. Fitbit Air can collect useful data, and this run suggests the core tracking is better than some might expect. The bigger question is whether the app can turn that data into something more useful without making the device feel overcomplicated.

The takeaway

I came away more impressed with Fitbit Air than I expected. Against Garmin, it was close on distance and heart rate, which are the numbers most people will care about after a normal 5K run.

It is not a Garmin replacement for runners who want on-wrist stats, built-in GPS and detailed training analysis. But that is probably not the right way to look at it. Fitbit Air feels more like a light, low-friction tracker that can handle a run well enough while staying out of the way the rest of the time.

Fitbit Air*

Order now

That screenless design will divide people. Some runners will hate giving up live wrist stats. Others may enjoy the simplicity, especially if they mostly run by feel and check the results afterward.

For me, the surprise was not that Garmin gave the richer experience. That was expected. The surprise was that Fitbit Air got the basic run data this close while feeling almost invisible on the wrist.

Don’t forget to check out my full Fitbit Air review.

The post I ran 5K with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin – and came away impressed appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro has now launched in China, bringing a brighter display, faster charging and sleep HRV to a familiar Pro band format. It keeps much of the Smart Band 9 Pro formula intact, including the same screen size, GNSS support and 21-day battery claim.

I reviewed the Smart Band 9 Pro last year, so I was keen to see what Xiaomi had actually changed this time. On paper, the answer is a mix of sensible upgrades and some familiar carry-overs. For the longer answer, keep reading.

View on Xiaomi’s website.

The design gets a cleaner premium push

At first glance, Xiaomi has not ripped up the Smart Band Pro formula. Not even close.

The Smart Band 10 Pro still sits in that odd but useful space between a large fitness tracker and a small smartwatch. That was already true of the Smart Band 9 Pro, which felt much closer to a smartwatch than a traditional narrow fitness band.

The difference is in the finish. The new model uses a 6M46 aviation aluminium alloy frame, while the Smart Band 9 Pro used an aluminium alloy frame with a fibre polymer rear. Xiaomi is also adding a ceramic edition this time, which gives the 10 Pro a slightly more premium angle without turning it into a full smartwatch. And you can opt for the edition with a Genuine Leather strap.

The dimensions tell a similar story. The metal Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro measures 42.84 × 32.16 × 9.7mm, while the ceramic edition comes in at 43.97 × 33.35 × 9.7mm. The Smart Band 9 Pro measures 46 × 33.35 × 9.99mm, so the new model is a little thinner and more compact, at least on paper.

Weight also improves. Xiaomi lists the 10 Pro at 21.6 grams without strap, compared with 24.5 grams for the 9 Pro. So some slight changes there, as well.

The display is the most obvious upgrade

Both models use a 1.74-inch AMOLED display with a 336 × 480 pixel resolution. That means Xiaomi has not increased the display size or pixel count. Instead, the company has focused on brightness and the way the panel sits inside the body.

The Smart Band 10 Pro gets a micro-curved AMOLED display with what Xiaomi describes as an ultra-narrow four-sided design. Peak brightness rises to 2000 nits, compared with 1200 nits on the Smart Band 9 Pro. That should be the easiest upgrade to notice outdoors.

In my Smart Band 9 Pro review, the display already stood out as one of the better parts of the device. It was bright, colourful and easy to read while running. The 10 Pro does not need to fix a weak point here. It simply pushes one of the 9 Pro’s strengths further.

That is probably the right move. Cheap fitness bands often feel cheap because of their screens, not because of the tracking. A brighter and cleaner panel helps the 10 Pro look more like a small smartwatch, even if the underlying experience remains closer to a tracker.

Health tracking finally gets HRV

The biggest health upgrade is not the sensor list itself, because both watches include an accelerometer, ambient light sensor, gyroscope, optical heart rate sensor and geomagnetic sensor. The change is in the heart-rate hardware and the extra data Xiaomi is now surfacing.

The Smart Band 10 Pro uses a new dual-light, dual-PD sensor setup. Xiaomi’s promo material also mentions 98.2% heart-rate accuracy, although that number will need real-world testing before it means much. Lab claims rarely tell the full story when wrists move, sweat builds and workouts become messy.

The more useful addition is sleep HRV. The Smart Band 9 Pro covered the basics well, including heart rate, SpO2, stress, sleep and women’s health tracking. But HRV was one of the obvious missing pieces in my review. I was hoping Xiaomi would add it then, and the 10 Pro finally does.

This matters because HRV gives Xiaomi a better route into recovery tracking. It does not automatically make the 10 Pro a serious recovery wearable, but it gives the device a stronger foundation than the 9 Pro had. If Xiaomi handles the interpretation well in the app, this could be one of the more useful upgrades.

On the topic of sleep, you also get Algorithm 2.0. It is said to improve fall-asleep and wake-up detection accuracy by 11%.

Sports tracking stays familiar

For sports, Xiaomi has kept the broad structure intact. Both devices support more than 150 sports modes, and both include GNSS with BeiDou, GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and QZSS. So no surprises there.

In my testing, the 9 Pro locked onto GPS quickly and performed much better than its price would suggest. On runs, it tracked close to my Garmin Forerunner 955, with only small differences in distance and heart-rate readings. That gives the 9 Pro genuine credibility as a low-cost fitness device rather than just a notification band with workout modes.

The 10 Pro adds a new cycling mode angle, with real-time data synchronisation to the phone for easier viewing. That sounds useful, especially for riders who mount their phone on the bars and want larger live data without buying a separate cycling computer.

Battery improves in the right place

Battery life looks familiar at first because both models claim up to 21 days. The difference is that Xiaomi has moved from a 350mAh battery on the Smart Band 9 Pro to a 380mAh silicon-carbon battery on the Smart Band 10 Pro.

That extra capacity does not translate into a longer headline figure, but it may help offset the brighter display and added features. With the 9 Pro, real-world battery life depended heavily on settings. Always-on display, GPS sessions and continuous health tracking could bring it down, but it still lasted well over 10 days with heavier use in my testing.

Charging is where the 10 Pro makes a clearer move. The new model supports magnetic fast charging and can reach 80% in 25 minutes. The Smart Band 9 Pro takes around 75 minutes for a full charge.

Specs comparison: Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro vs 9 Pro

The smartwatch extras are still region-sensitive

Xiaomi is also talking up HyperOS 3, Apple ecosystem support, dual-device notifications, quick command access, game mode, NFC and 5ATM water resistance. Some of this looks genuinely useful, especially the improved iPhone friendliness. Xiaomi bands have always been strongest inside Xiaomi’s own ecosystem, so better Apple compatibility could widen the appeal.

The usual warning still applies. NFC depends on region and version, so buyers outside China should not assume they will get the same payment experience shown in Chinese launch material. This was one of the weaker points of the Smart Band 9 Pro, where NFC remained restricted and less useful for global buyers.

The game mode is a stranger addition. Xiaomi shows game progress display, game status monitoring and battle reports. It may appeal to a specific crowd, but it is probably not the reason most people will buy a fitness band.

For most users, the more useful smart features remain notifications, media controls, find phone, alarms and app integration. The 9 Pro handled these well enough, though it still lacked proper replies and full smartwatch depth. The 10 Pro seems to extend the formula rather than replace it.

Bottom line

The Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro looks like a continuation of a winning formula. The brighter 2000-nit display, thinner body, lower weight, ceramic option, faster charging and sleep HRV support all move the product in the right direction.

It is not a massive rethink. The display size and resolution stay the same. Battery life remains rated at up to 21 days. Sports modes remain at more than 150, and GNSS support appears broadly unchanged.

That is not a bad thing. The Smart Band 9 Pro already had a strong base, especially for GPS, heart-rate tracking, comfort and battery life. Xiaomi did not need to rebuild it from scratch. It needed to make it feel more refined, add a few missing health metrics and keep the price sensible.

The 10 Pro seems to do that. The biggest real-world questions are accuracy, app interpretation of HRV and how many of the China launch features survive the global version. If Xiaomi gets those right, this could be one of the stronger budget-friendly wearable upgrades of the year.

View on Xiaomi’s website.

The post Xiaomi Smart Band 10 Pro changes just enough vs the 9 Pro appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Amazfit Bip Max has launched today, giving the Bip line a larger option for anyone who likes the basic Bip formula but wants something with more wrist presence. It arrives as the successor to the Amazfit Bip 6, which landed in March 2025.

This is not one of those comparisons where the two watches are pretending to be completely different things. They share the same general shape and everyday smartwatch focus, but Bip Max pushes the format bigger, while Bip 6 keeps things lighter and a bit more polished on the wrist.

So let’s get into the detail as to what separates these two devices. It’s worth noting that this article is based on leaked information about the upcoming device. We will update it when more info becomes available.

You can check out both watches on the Amazfit website.

Bigger screen and brighter display

The display is the obvious starting point. Amazfit Bip Max is uses a 2.07 inch AMOLED, compared with the 1.97 inch AMOLED on the Bip 6. That does not sound like a huge jump, but on a square smartwatch it should be noticeable, especially for widgets, maps, workout stats and larger watch faces.

Resolution also moves up from 390 x 450 on the Bip 6 to 432 x 514 on the Bip Max. Peak brightness climbs as well, from 2000 nits to 3000 nits. So the Max is not just larger, it should also be easier to read outdoors if the leaked figure holds up.

Both watches use tempered glass with an anti fingerprint coating, so this is not a case of the Max moving to a more premium glass material. The difference here is mostly about size, pixels and brightness. That fits the visual design too, as the Max looks like it has been built to make the screen the main selling point.

Bigger body

The size difference is plain to see. Bip Max measures 49.58 x 42.76 x 10.93 mm, while Bip 6 measures 46.3 x 40.2 x 10.45 mm. The Max is wider, taller and slightly thicker. Hence the name Max!

Bip Max weighs 52.6g with the strap, while Bip 6 weighs 44g. So yes, the Max is heavier, but not by a lot. What you will probably feel more is the larger case, because the Max simply takes up more space on the wrist.

The controls remain unchanged. Despite earlier rumours, the Bip Max does not come with a rotating navigation crown. Instead, it sticks with the same setup as the Bip 6, featuring two flat side buttons.

More storage for music and maps

Storage is another big gap between the two. Bip Max comes with 4GB, while Bip 6 has 512MB, with around 100MB available for files. That is a sizeable difference for a budget smartwatch.

The extra space on Bip Max can be used for maps as well as music, which gives the watch a bit more standalone appeal. It also makes the Max feel less like a basic fitness watch and more like a low cost smartwatch with some proper offline capability.

Bip 6 still covers the essentials, but its available file storage is much more limited. For users who do not care about storing anything on the watch, that may not be a big issue. But if offline content is part of the appeal, the leaked Max spec has the clear advantage.

Battery life gets a clear bump

Battery capacity also moves up sharply. Bip Max has a 550 mAh battery, while Bip 6 has a 340 mAh battery. That is a large increase and it helps explain the bigger case.

Typical battery life is quoted at up to 20 days for Bip Max, compared with up to 14 days for Bip 6. As always, real use will depend on brightness, workouts, Bluetooth calling, health tracking and always on display settings. But on paper, the Max has more headroom.

WiFi joins the spec sheet

Connectivity is another area where the Max steps ahead. It adds WiFi and uses Bluetooth 5.3, while Bip 6 has Bluetooth 5.2 and no WiFi. That helps with faster syncing, updates and transferring files.

Both watches still include a microphone and speaker, so Bluetooth calling is present on both. NFC is absent from both spec sheets, so there is no difference there. The Max gets the advantage mainly through WiFi and the newer Bluetooth version.

The sensor is pretty much the same. Both include the BioTracker PPG biometric sensor with 5PD and 2LED, along with acceleration, gyroscope, ambient light and geomagnetic sensors. So this is not a sensor upgrade story.

Our takeaway

Amazfit Bip Max comes in at $100, while Bip 6 sits at $80. So this is not a huge price gap, but the two watches do start to make sense for slightly different people.

Bip Max is the one to go for if you want the larger screen, longer battery life, WiFi and more room for music and maps. It is also the bigger watch on the wrist, so that extra hardware comes with a chunkier feel.

Bip 6 is the neater option. It costs less, weighs less and keeps the same basic Bip idea in a smaller body. If you do not care about the bigger display or extra storage, that $80 model still looks like the easier everyday pick.

You can check out both watches on the Amazfit website.

Tech specs comparison

The post Amazfit Bip Max vs Bip 6: Where the newer model moves ahead appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Both watches are up on the Zepp Health website now. The Ultra comes in at $599 while the 2 Pro can be picked up for around $150 less.

The Ultra is built around longer distances

The clearest split is positioning. Zepp Health describes the Cheetah 2 Ultra as a watch built for trail runners dealing with prolonged exposure, unpredictable terrain and sustained load. That explains much of the hardware direction.

This is the model for people who want more screen space, more battery capacity, more storage and proper offline mapping support. The official listing also mentions full-colour contour maps with 2.5x faster render and Trail Running mode with load settings, which gives the Ultra a much clearer outdoor identity than the standard Cheetah pitch.

The Cheetah 2 Pro sits in a slightly different lane. It is aimed more at marathon and performance running, with a lighter build and a display that is smaller but sharper on paper. So this is not simply a better versus worse comparison.

It looks more like Zepp Health has separated the Cheetah line into two flavours of serious running watch. One is built for longer trail efforts, while the other keeps the road-running focus.

The Ultra is heavier but not much larger

The Cheetah 2 Ultra measures 47.4 x 47.4mm across the case. Zepp Health lists the thickness as 15.6mm including the heart rate sensor and 13.3mm excluding it.

The Cheetah 2 Pro is very close in size. It measures 48 x 48mm across the case, with thickness listed at 15.6mm including the heart rate sensor and 13.2mm excluding it. So the two watches are almost identical on thickness, while the Pro is fractionally wider.

The bigger difference is weight. The Cheetah 2 Ultra weighs 52 grams without the strap, while the Cheetah 2 Pro comes in at 45.6 grams without the strap.

Zepp Health has also given the Ultra a 22mm strap setup. The official specs list black silicone and striped green nylon options, while the Pro uses a 20mm silicone strap with a classic pin buckle.

That wider strap fits the Ultra’s outdoor direction. A nylon option also makes sense for longer efforts, especially if you want something more breathable than silicone.

The display is bigger on the Ultra

The display is one of the easiest differences to understand. The Cheetah 2 Ultra has a 1.5 inch AMOLED screen with sapphire glass, a 480 x 480 resolution, 323 PPI and peak brightness of up to 3,000 nits.

The Cheetah 2 Pro has a 1.32 inch AMOLED screen with sapphire glass, a 466 x 466 resolution, 353 PPI and peak brightness of up to 3,000 nits. So the brightness figure is aligned, but the Ultra gives you the larger canvas.

That should help with maps, workout pages and glanceability during longer outdoor sessions. For a trail watch, that makes sense. More visible data on the wrist is useful when the terrain is uneven and stopping to fiddle with screens gets annoying fast.

Battery and storage are the big hardware wins

Battery is where the Ultra pulls ahead most clearly. It has a 780 mAh battery and is listed for up to 30 days of typical use, up to 60 hours in Accurate GPS mode, up to 33 hours in Trail Running mode and up to 228 hours in maximum GPS battery mode.

The Cheetah 2 Pro has a smaller 540 mAh battery. It is good for up to 20 days of typical use, up to 10 days of heavy use, up to 8 days with AOD enabled, up to 31 hours in Accurate GPS mode, up to 69 hours in GPS power saving mode and up to 99 hours in extended GPS mode.

So the Ultra still has the stronger endurance story, especially for long trail efforts. But the Pro is not weak on battery. It just sits in a more road-running and structured-training lane.

Storage also doubles. The Cheetah 2 Ultra has 64GB, while the Cheetah 2 Pro has 32GB. That gives the Ultra more room for maps, music and offline use.

The core platform looks very similar

A lot of the underlying hardware appears to be shared. Both watches use a BioTracker 6.0 PPG biometric sensor with 5PD and 2LED. Both also include acceleration, gyroscope, ambient light, geomagnetic, temperature and barometric altimeter sensors.

Satellite positioning also looks aligned. Both support dual-band positioning and six satellite positioning systems, so the Ultra does not appear to get a different GPS class on paper. The real difference is how long each watch can keep going while using those tools.

Connectivity is slightly different in the official spec sheets. The Cheetah 2 Ultra is listed with Bluetooth, BLE 5.2 and Wi-Fi 2.4GHz, while the Cheetah 2 Pro lists Bluetooth, BLE 5.3 and Wi-Fi 2.4GHz.

The same applies to the general hardware extras. Both watches include a Led flashlight. The difference is that Pro has a white flashlight, while Ultra have a more capable white, red SOS, Boost combination. Beyond that the duo has a microphone, speaker and linear motor, so the day-to-day control and utility setup looks broadly aligned.

The Ultra gets the fuller outdoor package

The official Cheetah 2 Ultra listing also gives it 180+ sports modes, while the Cheetah 2 Pro lists 170+. That difference is not huge on its own, but it does reinforce the same split seen elsewhere. The Ultra gets the broader outdoor package, while the Pro keeps the lighter road-running focus.

The running feature set is also broad. Zepp Health lists built-in running workouts, Zepp Coach running plans, lactate threshold, running power, ground contact time, running gear management, Track Run mode, smart trajectory correction and virtual pacer.

It also supports connection to peripheral workout devices, including heart rate belts, running power meters, cycling power meters, cycling speedometers and cycling cadence meters. Third-party syncing includes Runna, Strava, TrainingPeaks, Apple Health, Google Fit and Intervals.icu.

Which one looks more useful

Cheetah 2 Ultra is the one built for longer, rougher runs, where battery life, screen size, mapping and storage matter more than shaving off every gram. The 1.5 inch display, 780 mAh battery, 64GB of storage, 22mm strap, 180+ sports modes and 33 hours in Trail Running mode all point in the same direction.

Cheetah 2 Pro is the leaner road-running option. It is lighter, has the sharper display on paper and still keeps the same broad running toolkit and support for external sensors.

So the split is pretty clean. Cheetah 2 Ultra makes more sense if you want the Cheetah line pushed toward trails, ultras and longer outdoor sessions. Cheetah 2 Pro makes more sense if you want the lighter marathon-focused watch.

Both watches are up on the Zepp Health website now.

The post Amazfit Cheetah 2 Ultra pushes further vs the Cheetah 2 Pro appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.