Sitting at the top of Garmin’s recreational dive watch family, and by extension the best swimming watch for divers, the Descent Mk3i’s AMOLED display – 43mm or 51mm – uses a scratch-resistant sapphire crystal lens – something that’s more important than you might realize in scuba diving, where you and your buddy can be exposed to a variety of hard materials like other watches, knives and the natural topography, such as rocks and wrecks.
I didn’t treat the Descent Mk3i any differently to how I dive with any of my own watches (slap it on and forget about it without being overly cautious), and so far, the display has proven to live up to its scratch-resistant claims. That titanium case has also held up well during testing, but be aware that the Mk3 without air integration is a stainless steel model.
Getting used to the five physical buttons can take some getting used to, but take the time to explore their functionalities, and you’ll be swimming. And on that, if you’re not swimming and are instead in a dry environment, you can use the touchscreen to navigate the Decent Mk3i.
Where this dive computer stands out against virtually all of its rivals is with its SubWave sonar technology, which enables diver-to-diver communication up to 30 meters. None of my buddies have one of these for me to try it with, but you can be sure that I’ve done my fair share of research on the feature and it comes highly recommended. However, I’ve just highlighted the biggest problem of SubWave-based communication – you need to be diving with like-minded Garmin fans.
(Image credit: Craig Hale)
If you are in that position, especially if you’re running a dive school, then you’ll also love being able to monitor the tank pressures of up to eight divers (who are within a tighter 10-meter range).
Compared with other recreational watches, the Garmin Descent Mk3i is much closer to the boundary of tech diving – apart from single gas mixes, you can also set it up for multi-gas dives and rebreathers, so if you plan on going deeper or staying for longer, then your requirement to use different equipment and gasses will be supported by this high-end watch.
It also works all the way down to 200 meters – that’s way below recreational diving limits, but is a welcome upgrade over most watches, which cut out at 40 meters (around 10-20 metres short of maximum recreational diving limits). Many rivals can withstand water pressures down to 100-200 meters, but they tend to stop tracking your diving activity way before this.
When you’re on land, the sensors take regular readings of your heart rate, respiration rate, pulse oximetry and more to estimate your in-the-moment health like the rest of the best Garmin watches, and these metrics feed the Dive Readiness score.
There’s even a Jet Lag Adviser to offer guidance on light exposure, sleep schedule and exercise – perfect for those action-packed dive holidays. Although the science behind preventing decompression sickness is still being developed, we do know that physical exertion can bring on the effects, so being advised of your dive readiness before you get in the water is a handy tool.
(Image credit: Craig Hale)
Unlike the Apple Watch Ultra 2, which lives on my left wrist 24/7 (apart from when it’s charging), the Descent Mk3i’s battery life promised 30 whole hours of diving, which was more than enough to cover my weekend of four dives. And on the weeks when I wasn’t diving, I made a habit of charging it on a Sunday evening – that 10-day battery life is a game-changer, even with all the sensors going every few seconds.
Besides being deep in the Apple ecosystem, the only reason I can think of stopping me from moving over to Garmin fully is the fact that it still has a relatively clunky UI, but that’s hard to solve given how unbeatably feature-ridden it is. It has features like Garmin Pay and a voice assistant, but it’s not quite as slick as native Apple or Google watches.
On the whole, though, if you can look past the high price point, I think the Garmin Descent Mk3i might just be the best all-in-one smartwatch for divers you can buy today, and even with its four-figure price tag, it still represents good value for money on the basis that you get one of the most comprehensive and reliable sports trackers in the business.
Garmin Descent Mk3i: Specifications
Component
Garmin Descent Mk3i (model tested: Carbon grey DLC titanium with black silicone band, 51mm)
Battery life
Up to 10 days (4 days always-on display, 30 hours diving mode)
Charging cable
Garmin proprietary clip charger with USB-C connection
Air, Nitrox and Trimix, up to 100% O2; 1 bottom gas and up to 11 deco and/or backup gases
Component
Garmin Descent Mk3i (43mm)
Price
Starts at $1,400 / £1,250 / AUD $2,500
Dimensions
43 x 43 x 14.13 mm
Weight
68.3g with bands
Case/bezel
Fiber-reinforced polymer / stainless steel
Gas mixes
Air, Nitrox and Trimix, up to 100% O2; 1 bottom gas and up to 11 deco and/or backup gases
GPS
GPS, Galileo, GLONASS
Battery life
Up to 10 days (30 hours diving mode)
Connection
Bluetooth, Wi-Fi
Water resistant
Yes, 200m depth
Garmin Descent Mk3i: Price and availability
(Image credit: Craig Hale)
$1,400 / £1,250 / AUD $2,500 for 43mm
$1,600 / £1,600 / AUD $3,200 for 51mm
T2 tank pressure transmitter: $500 / £430 / AUD $900
The top-of-the-range Garmin Descent Mk3i (with transmitter) is a $2,000+ wearable, which puts it right at the top of its class, but it could still end up costing you less than buying a dedicated dive watch and a second fitness tracker for land.
To fully benefit from the Mk3i’s capabilities, you’ll need to pair it with the T2 tank pressure transmitter for a fair chunk more cash.
If you’re on a tighter budget, there’s also the Descent Mk3. The removal of the ‘i’ in its name means it won’t work with the tank pressure transmitter, but you can save yourself some cash and pick it up for $1,200 / £1,100 / AUD $1,250.
Garmin Descent Mk3i: Scorecard
(Image credit: Craig Hale)
Category
Comment
Score
Value
It’s loaded with more features than most rivals, but it’s still very expensive
4/5
Design
Rugged and durable design with high-end titanium finish on Mk3i models
5/5
Features
There’s no denying this is the ultimate watch for outdoor and diving enthusiasts
5/5
Performance
Responsive operating system and long-lasting battery life
5/5
Garmin Descent Mk3i: Should I buy?
(Image credit: Craig Hale)
Buy it if...
You want something that can do it all
It’s expensive, but there’s not much that comes near to offering as much functionality as the Descent Mk3i.
You’re a tech-reational diver
You can push the limits of recreational diving with this watch, which offers tools to support tech diving.
You spend a lot of time outdoors
Superb GPS tracking, detailed body metrics and endless workout options help you to go wild.
Don't buy it if...
You’re on a budget
There are watches that offer similar metrics and tank pressure monitoring for less money.
You’re a novice diver
Chances are you don’t need everything the Descent Mk3i offers, so why not consider a Fenix 8?
Also consider...
Garmin Fenix 8
A high-quality all-in-one dive watch for true outdoor enthusiasts.
Samsung isn't a brand I immediately associate with affordable smart tech, but the Galaxy Fit 3 is one of the cheapest proprietary fitness trackers on the market. Even Google's Fitbit Inspire 3 band, which a few years ago seemed like a sensible entry point to the best fitness trackers, is double the price.
Samsung launched the Fit 3 in several territories in early 2024, but its US debut only came this January. It replaces and builds on the Galaxy Fit 2 – a good-looking budget band that we found had questionable heart rate accuracy – with some noticeable improvements to design and tracking.
The Fit 3 has a refined design with a bigger, brighter screen to accommodate wider stats viewing. It can now monitor blood oxygenation levels and also has a decent swim stroke counter. But while the Fit 2 worked with some iPhone models, the Fit 3 does no such thing. This tracker is only compatible with Android 10 or above, which I've already seen complaints about in some online reviews: Samsung doesn't make this super clear when you shop online.
(Image credit: Lauren Scott)
While Apple hasn't focused any effort on serving up its own entry into the best cheap fitness trackers game, it seems Samsung wants to tap into this underserved corner of the market alongside its premium Galaxy Watch range. In short, the Fit 3 records and displays your steps walked, calories burned, heart rate, stress levels, sleep, and more, with just a few swipes and taps on its touchscreen.
As a runner, I was frustrated that the Fit 3 didn't have GPS, but at such a low price, I'm not sure you can expect it to. It's a simple, accessible device that monitors your everyday health data without costing a fortune.
It offers smartwatch-style notifications and music controls, plus weather info and the usual collection of customizable watch faces to choose from on the Samsung Galaxy Wearable app. Navigating through screens is easy and enjoyable thanks to a responsive touchscreen and very clear menu design. As someone used to Garmin's convoluted settings and screens, the Fit 3 was a breath of fresh air.
Samsung says that the battery should last 13 days, and I found I'd get at least 10, while tracking at least three short runs and wearing the band overnight during that time. Having worn many of the more advanced fitness devices on the market, I didn't feel shortchanged by the Fit 3's everyday health metrics, but I did sometimes question the accuracy of its heart rate during intense workouts.
It's simply brilliant value, though, with a lovely screen, clear stats and encouraging insights to help you improve your everyday health. Without on-board GPS, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone serious about running, but if it's your first fitness tracker or you don't have a lot to spend, the Fit 3 is a brilliant option.
Don't look at it if you've got an iPhone – but if you're a Samsung user, I'd still question whether investing all that money in a premium Galaxy Watch would give you greater accuracy and health features.
Samsung Galaxy Fit 3: Price and availability
Priced at around $59 / £49 / AU$139
The cheapest Samsung Galaxy fitness device
Made available in the US from January 2025
The Samsung Galaxy Fit 3 was released in Asia, Europe, and Latin America in early 2024. It didn't launch in the US until January 9, 2025. There are three colors to choose from (Gray, Silver and Pink Gold), all with the same RRP, but the Gray option, which is actually black in real life, gets reduced most often.
The device is easily Samsung's cheapest Galaxy fitness device, costing around $59 / £49 / AU$139, but even less if you pick up a regular Samsung or Amazon deal. Few devices can compete with the Fit 3's super-low price point, aside from the Google Fitbit Inspire 3, HUAWEI Band 9 and all those non-proprietary options on Amazon.
And unlike Fitbit, you don't have to pay for a premium membership to access all of the Galaxy Fit 3's features. Meaning the price you pay upfront is all you'll have to pay. The Samsung Health app is free, although it's worth noting (and I will again) that it only works with Android devices, pushing out the option for Apple users to buy the Fit 3.
The Samsung Galaxy Fit 3 looks very different to its predecessor. Its 1.6-inch display is 0.5 inches bigger, with a wider, rectangular view in comparison, which allows you to see more stats without having to open your phone. I'd say the Fit 3 looks more like a smartwatch than the long, thin Fit 2, and with a 2.78x higher resolution on the display (now 256 x 402 px), it's a lot crisper too.
You can set up the screen to be always-on (which will drain the battery faster) or to illuminate when you move your wrist upwards. I went for this option to save power, but sometimes had to raise my arm multiple times to turn it on. On the plus side, the screen was easy to see in bright sunlight, and the auto-brightness feature worked well to adapt to different environments.
Where the screen was integrated into the band of the Fit 2, the Fit 3's tracker is easily detachable with a press of a button on the back. I love the ease of customization here. With the old Fit 2, you were stuck with the color of the band. But the 3's design is more similar to the Apple Watch, and you can swap out the silicone strap if you want to change your style.
(Image credit: Lauren Scott)
I think it's vital that fitness trackers are comfortable enough to wear for long periods – ideally overnight if you're going to use the sleep tracking features. At 18.5g, the Fit 3 is lightweight, and half the weight of my usual Garmin running watch, but I found wearing it uncomfortable sometimes.
Because the sensor sticks out from the back of the device, it doesn't sit flush with your skin. When I tightened the strap during workouts to get an accurate heart rate, or when my wrists got hot in warm weather, I'd get a deep imprint and have to take the Fit 3 off to give my skin a breather.
Overall, though, the Fit 3 feels well-made, and durable enough to withstand the elements, sweat and tough workouts. Its 5ATM waterproof rating provided peace of mind when swimming and showering.
The AMOLED screen is big and bright enough for those still wanting a smaller fitness band, and you soon get used to the basic touch gestures for moving across the settings and screens. A swipe-down brings up the home menu and settings, or a hold-down lets you change the watch face. The new button on the side brings you back to the home screen with a press or to the exercise with a double-press.
You'll need the Samsung Galaxy Wearable app and Samsung Health app to use the Fit 3. Once set up, the Wearable app lets you customize the view and order of tiles on the device and add more watch faces. Thankfully, it's also easy and intuitive to use, with fun themes and color coding to make information easy to scan.
Design score: 4/5
Samsung Galaxy Fit 3: Features
(Image credit: Lauren Scott)
Music playback and phone notifications
Tracks over 100 workouts (although not all are useful)
Records sleep stages
Being a budget tracker, it's no surprise that the Fit 3 omits many of the key features seen in Samsung's watch range. To keep the price down (and presumably battery life up), the Fit 3's smartphone connectivity is based on Bluetooth, and there's no Wi-Fi. The main benefit of Wi-Fi is a longer range for syncing data (helpful if you're exercising outdoors without a phone), but it makes no difference to the experience here.
Where the best Samsung watches offer impressive GPS for runners, the Fit 3 relies on being connected to a phone for route tracking. In short, you can't run (or cycle) phone-free and expect to record a truly accurate distance and pace.
Compared to the previous Galaxy Fit 2, though, the Fit 3 does have notable new features, including blood oxygen and heart rate variability sensors, a route tracker, and a barometer. A new light sensor also enables the optional always-on display mode I mentioned in the Design section.
(Image credit: Lauren Scott)
The Fit 3 doesn't have a built-in speaker or microphone, but you can answer calls directly from the screen and control your music or podcast playback when in range of your phone. The customizable vibration alerts are also useful for setting alarms.
The Fit 3 runs on a simplified FreeRTOS operating system, but you can’t access the Wear OS app store or connect to any third-party apps (such as Strava and Spotify). While the Fit 3 works with phones on Android 10 or later, certain features are only available on the best Samsung phones.
These include snore detection, which uses the phone's microphone to record and analyze audio, plus the ability to trigger the phone's camera with a button on the Fit 3. I used a Google Pixel phone to test the Fit 3, so I wasn't able to try either of these features, but they feel like gimmicks rather than dealbreakers for most enthusiast exercisers.
Given that the Fit 3 is destined for those early on their fitness journey, it makes sense for Samsung to have left out GPS tracking and ECG readings, which would have pushed the price up and perhaps been ignored by beginners anyway. What's left is a feature set worthy of the Fit 3's price tag – albeit too basic for certain users. There are over 100 workouts to choose from, although many of these are nothing more than a calorie counter, which I'll come to next.
Features score: 3.5/5
Samsung Galaxy Fit 3: Performance
(Image credit: Lauren Scott)
Sleep scores missed data
(Mostly) accurate heart rate readings
Smooth and glitch-free use
This is a tracker designed for simplicity, so I hoped the Fit 3 setup would be straightforward. It comes in a small box with its band already attached, a USB-C charging cable (with no plug, which feels standard in a plastic-saving 2025) and a few booklets I mostly ignored.
First, I discovered I need two apps – Samsung Health and Galaxy Wearable – to set up the Fit 3, but it didn't take longer than five minutes to unbox and connect it to my partner's Pixel rather than my own incompatible iPhone. It took some more faff through permission screens, and another five minutes, to set up a Samsung account, but I suspect this is a step you could skip if you've had a previous Samsung device.
Once set up, I found navigating the tracker was smooth in every situation. Even when I had wet or sweaty hands, the touch response was accurate, which is a great result for a tracker you want to use while swimming and pushing yourself.
The Fit 3's 208mAh battery is around 30% bigger than the Fit 2's, and while I was impressed during testing, I never quite made it to the company’s 13-day maximum. I enabled the always-on display (taking it off during sleep) and got just over 5 full days before it conked out.
Putting the display back to a normal 15-second timer, and recording a 30-minute workout each day, it lasted 8 days. A dull charge took me 68 minutes, which is far shy of the Apple Watch 10 but half the time it takes me to charge up my older Garmin Forerunner 265S. So what? Well, you get much more juice than the majority of smartwatches, which is great if you don't want to be recharging constantly.
(Image credit: Lauren Scott)
The Fit 3 has over 100 workout options, and you can set your favorites so they're easy to find. I certainly didn't test every one, but I did cover the basics – walking, running, swimming – plus some more rogue options like crunches, dancing and burpees. I expected a movement like crunches or bicep curls to capture repetitions, but you get a similarly generic screen to walking with duration, calories and average heart rate. It's not particularly useful.
To test the Fit 3's fitness and sleep tracking accuracy, I wore it alongside the Garmin Forerunner 265 constantly. When I checked at the end of each day, I found that my steps were different by about 500 steps higher on my Garmin, but over 17,000 steps, that didn't feel unreasonable.
The device came unstuck when I went for a five kilometer run without a phone. Because there's no GPS, the Fit 3 has to estimate your distance (I'd guess) based on height and steps. So after finishing the run, where my Forerunner had recorded 5K (three miles) exactly, the Fit 3 was at 2.81 miles. Of course, this deviance would rack up over longer distances.
My heart rate reading was much closer, with the Fit 3 within about five beats per minute (bpm) of the Forerunner at all times. I'm trying to focus on more Zone 2 training, and love how the Fit 3 displays heart rate zones while running or working out. I also tried out machines at the gym with heart rate monitors to cross-reference the Fit 3's readings. Again, it was within 3-8 bpm of a treadmill and stairmaster machine.
(Image credit: Lauren Scott)
After all that exercise, I wore the Fit 3 to bed over a few weeks to record my sleep times and stages, blood oxygen, and (most importantly) to find out what sleep animal Samsung gave me.
Every morning, I read my sleep score to see how long and well I slept, but unfortunately, I often found it much lower than the relative scores from my Forerunner. On the night before writing this review, I got an actual sleep time of 6 hours 54 minutes, REM sleep 45 minutes on the Fit 3. On my Garmin, it was 8 hours 12, and 2 hours 26 REM.
Digging into any detailed metrics from the Fit 3 requires you to open the Samsung Health App. There, the sleep data is easy to read and attractively presented, with sleep stages on a color-coded scale. Personally, I can't feel confident that the Fit 3 sleep data is accurate, and I stopped wearing it in bed after a week.
Wearables have a long way to go in general when it comes to sleep, and the same goes for women's cycle tracking. I liked being able to log my period in the Samsung app and seeing my predicted fertile window, powered by Natural Cycles, and I suspect the timings would get more accurate the more input you give it. But again, the initial stats felt too much like guesstimates.
If all that sounds negative, it isn't meant to. The Fit 3 never lagged and never failed to log a workout or connect back to the smartphone. Notifications came through instantly, and while sleep tracking could be more reliable, wearables' data gaps tend to improve over time: Samsung's sleep tracking on devices such as the Samsung Galaxy Ring is highly rated.
Performance score: 4/5
Scorecard
Category
Comment
Score
Value
An impressively low price for the features and ease-of-use.
4.5/5
Design
Loved the bright screen, but found the band less comfortable than other devices.
4/5
Features
Without GPS the device is more limited, but workout tracking is great.
4/5
Performance
Accurate heart rate tracking, a smooth if not basic app and impressive 10-day battery life.
3.5/5
(Image credit: Lauren Scott)
Samsung Galaxy Fit 3: Should I buy?
Buy it if...
You've got a Samsung Galaxy phone
The most streamlined experience is achieved by pairing the Fit 3 with a Samsung Galaxy device. It's a great budget tracker if that's the case.
You're a general gym-goer
If you want to track calories from gym classes or common exercise machines, the Fit 3 works well.
You're a beginner to fitness tracking
The Fit 3 makes fitness tracking simple and accessible. It doesn't have advanced metrics, but the stats it records paint a useful health picture.
Don't buy it if...
You’re on an Apple device
You can't connect the Fit 3 to an iPhone at all, which will be a disappointment to many Apple users.
You want GPS
You won't be able to record your location data unless the device is connected to a phone, which is no good for phone-free running, walking or cycling.
Also consider
Fitbit Luxe
It's four times more expensive than the Fit 3, but if you're looking for something more stylish, the Luxe has a gorgeous design. Sadly, it also lacks GPS.
If you want something that looks more like a watch than a tracker, but at a similarly low price, this sub-$99 option offers excellent health tracking and a long battery.
I wore the Samsung Galaxy Fit 3 for over two weeks on one wrist, keeping my usual Garmin Forerunner 265S on the other (for stats comparison). It was linked to my partner's Google Pixel 8 Pro as my iPhone wasn't compatible. I wore the device overnight to test the sleep metrics over a sustained period and how well the battery lasted.
I tracked more than 10 workout types, including a few 5 km parkruns, Fiit workouts at home, aerobics, hikes, and even dancing. I logged heart rate and stress measurements at different times of day during testing and set up the female cycle tracking feature on the accompanying Samsung Health app.
After just 24 hours with the Shokz OpenFit 2+ I can already tell they’re great headphones that are worthy of inclusion in our best open-ear headphones buying guide, and perhaps our best running headphones guide as well.
They're comfortable to wear, even for glasses wearers like myself, with Shokz’ flexible nickel-titanium alloy ear hooks looping over your ears and weighted down by a bulbous end, while the driver sits snugly against your temples.
The silicon covering, which Shokz labels its “ultra soft silicone 2.0” is comfortable to wear in sweaty conditions. The whole earbud weighs 9.4g, making it light, but a gram heavier than the original OpenFit.
The drivers aren’t bone-conduction headphones like the Shokz OpenRun Pro 2 or Shokz Openswim Pro. Instead, they’re more like traditional drivers or speakers, directing sound towards your ears without covering the lughole entirely.
The sound is really very good, perhaps even coming close to the Bose Ultra Open Earbuds (our gold standard in open-ear sound) in terms of quality. The addition of Dolby is noticeable from the moment you flip the setting on in the Shokz app: everything becomes richer and more pronounced.
(Image credit: Future)
Likewise, I had fun tinkering with the EQ settings in the app, switching from Vocal mode to listen to my podcast during the first part of the run, and Bass Boost once I got up the giant hill I'd foolishly decided to tackle. I needed something heavier to get myself through the second part of my run, and Bass Boost paired nicely with the pounding roars of Linken Park’s new Heavy is the Crown.
While the sound is comparable to the Bose Ultra Open, the OpenFit 2+ are certainly more reassuring to wear during strenuous exercise. I was continually worried that the Ultra Open would fall off my ears during jogs due to their pendulous wobbly clip design, and I personally know one person who had this happen during a marathon – a disaster, as the earbuds are very expensive.
Taking the Shokz OpenFit 2+ on a run, I felt very secure even during a trail that demanded a little lateral agility to navigate: I felt them shift slightly a few times, but never feared they would drop off.
I probably wouldn’t, however, wear them during circuit training with explosive movements like burpees, as I’d feel they might leave my ears during dynamic jumps. That’s something to test and report back on in my full review.
Shokz OpenFit 2+: Price and availability
(Image credit: Future)
$179.95 / £169
$100 / £100 cheaper than Bose Ultra Open Earbuds at launch
Only $20 / £10 more expensive than regular OpenFit 2
The Shokz OpenFit 2 cost $179.95 / £169 (about AU$350), while the Shokz OpenFit 2+ cost $199.95 / £179 (about AU$370). Official pricing for other regions is TBC. The Shokz are available to order now.
For the extra few dollars and pounds, you get the Dolby audio setting and wireless charging on the hard plastic case, whereas the OpenFit 2 need to be charged via USB, and they're still much cheaper than the Bose Ultra Open Earbuds were at launch.
It’s such a nice convenience, and Dolby makes a big difference for such a small price increase, that my initial thoughts are that the standard OpenFit 2 will rapidly become obsolete; I can’t imagine a situation in which I’d recommend them over the 2+.
Shokz OpenFit 2+: Early Verdict
The Shokz OpenFit 2+: are great open-ear headphones for both workouts and general listening, with Dolby Audio as the flagship sound-enhancing feature – and the OpenFit 2 now seem a bit redundant as the two models are so similar in price. You’ll be able to check back soon for our definitive verdict in our full Shokz OpenFit 2+ review,.
After weeks with the Shokz OpenFit 2+ I can tell they’re great headphones that are worthy of inclusion in our best open-ear headphones buying guide, our best running headphones guide, and will be ideal for any runner willing to splash out on a pair.
They're comfortable to wear: the over-ear design isn't ideal for glasses wearers like myself, but I made do on my commute, with Shokz’ flexible nickel-titanium alloy ear hooks looping over your ears and weighted down by a bulbous end, while the driver sits snugly against your temples. It didn't affect the sound quality, but did affect the fit slightly: more on that later. However, as I don't run with glasses, it didn't cause any real lifestyle issues.
The silicon covering, which Shokz labels its “ultra soft silicone 2.0” is comfortable to wear in sweaty conditions. The whole earbud weighs 9.4g, making it light, but a gram heavier than the original OpenFit. Physical buttons and touch controls allow you to adjust volume, pause and skip tracks. The headphones are rated IP55: splashproof and sweat-resistant, ideal for rain but not water immersion.
The drivers aren’t bone-conduction headphones like the Shokz OpenRun Pro 2 or Shokz Openswim Pro. Instead, they’re more like traditional drivers or speakers, directing sound towards your ears without covering the lughole entirely. Four beamforming mics with ANC and AI-powered algorithms allow you to make clear calls: Shokz' claims about clarity on calls were a bit of an exaggeration on windy days and runs, but clear enough.
The sound is really very good: I'd say it's close to the Bose Ultra Open Earbuds (our gold standard in open-ear sound) in terms of quality, and far and away better from a fit perspective. The addition of Dolby is noticeable from the moment you flip the setting on in the Shokz app: everything becomes richer and more pronounced.
(Image credit: Future)
Likewise, I had fun tinkering with the EQ settings in the app, switching from Vocal mode to listen to my podcast during the first part of the run, and Bass Boost once I got up the giant hill I'd foolishly decided to tackle. I needed something heavier to get myself through the second part of my run, and Bass Boost paired nicely with the pounding roars of Linkin Park’s new (at the time of writing) Heavy is the Crown. The app even has a "find my headphones" style feature, which is clever stuff.
While the sound is comparable to the Bose Ultra Open, the OpenFit 2+ are certainly more reassuring to wear during strenuous exercise. I was continually worried that the Ultra Open would fall off my ears during jogs due to their pendulous wobbly clip design, and while I got through a 20km run without it happening, I personally know one person who had this happen during a marathon – a disaster, as the earbuds are very expensive.
Taking the Shokz OpenFit 2+ on runs, I felt very secure on linear road runs, and even during trails that demanded a little lateral agility to navigate: I felt them shift slightly a few times, but never feared they would drop off. The only time I did feel them wobble precariously was during explosive jumping motions in a demanding circuits session, and they did indeed threaten to leave my ears during dynamic vertical movement.
Nonetheless, this is a quibble: I loved them. They lie so flat against my skull that I even wear them to bed when I can't sleep and don't want to disturb my wife with an audiobook. They're extremely comfortable, and great for all aspects of active life. They're not quite as rich in sound as the Bose Ultra Open Earbuds, but they're almost there, they feel more secure, and crucially work out around $100 / £80 cheaper.
$100 / £100 cheaper than Bose Ultra Open Earbuds at launch
Only $20 / £10 more expensive than regular OpenFit 2
The Shokz OpenFit 2 cost $179.95 / £169 (about AU$350), while the Shokz OpenFit 2+ cost $199.95 / £179 (about AU$370). Official pricing for other regions is TBC. The Shokz are available to order now.
For the extra few dollars and pounds, you get the Dolby audio setting and wireless charging on the hard plastic case, whereas the OpenFit 2 need to be charged via USB, and they're still much cheaper than the Bose Ultra Open Earbuds were at launch.
It’s such a nice convenience, and Dolby makes a big difference for such a small price increase, that my initial thoughts are that the standard OpenFit 2 will rapidly become obsolete; I can’t imagine a situation in which I’d recommend them over the 2+.
Value score: 4/5
Shokz OpenFit 2+: Scorecard
Category
Comment
Score
Value
High-end for open-ears, but cheaper than Bose and marginally more expensive than OpenFit 2.
4/5
Design
Comfortable and secure on the run, during commutes and during lateral movement. Some slight shifts on vertical movement and due to glasses.
4.5/5
Features
Multipoint connectivity, advanced audio settings in-app, wireless charging. As good as open-ear gets.
5/5
Performance
Outstanding on runs, wonderful sound quality, excellent battery life.
5/5
Total
Misses out on a perfect score by a hair, but it's an obvious choice for your next open-ear buds.
4.5/5
Shokz OpenFit 2+: Should I buy?
(Image credit: Future)
Buy it if...
You want true wireless running headphones
Most bone conduction headphones have a connective band between them. The OpenFit 2+ are entirely wireless.
You want great sound
Open-ear or bone conduction headphones can sacrifice sound quality. Not so here.
You want excellent battery life
The Shokz OpenFit 2+ are long-lasting, fast-charging and even offer a wireless charging option.
Don't buy it if...
You're on a budget
The OpenFit 2+ are towards the premium end of the price spectrum, although don't reach the heights of Bose.
You run or cycle wearing glasses or shades
Over-ear hooks can get in the way for glasses wearers: not normally an issue, but slight movement can cause issues during strenuous exercise.
I wore the Shokz OpenFit 2+ in the gym, during road and trail runs, and during my commute. I wore them with and without glasses for one month, tested the controls in the Shokz app, and drained the battery down. I even wore them during sleep.
At their core, the Shokz OpenFit 2 are a great pair of open earbuds that provide a crucial mix of traffic awareness and solid sound quality that runners of all skill levels are sure to appreciate. I know they’ll be my go-to for running – for quite some time. Surely, that makes them some of the best open earbuds around, right?
Sort of, but that's not the whole story. Yes, there are some notable improvements here over the original Shokz OpenFit earbuds, including a massive leap in the available battery life, a more robust soundscape and, my personal favourite upgrade, the addition of physical buttons which just makes controlling playback on the go so much easier.
It’s a great package overall, but there’s a big asterisk over how much money you have to spend. Now at the increased price of $179.95 / £169 (which is around AU$350, give or take), the OpenFit 2 aren’t quite as affordable as their predecessor, so they're oddly less viable as a sports-specific second buy alongside a traditional pair of in-ear buds like the AirPods Pro 2 or the Sony WH-1000XM5.
Lastly, there's the existence of the also-just-launched Shokz OpenFit 2 Plus (or OpenFit 2+), which throws quite the spanner in the works. Despite only being £10 more expensive than the OpenFit 2, the 2+ come with wireless charging and Dolby Atmos compatibility, two features which are easily worth such a nominal uptick at the checkout.
If you can get the OpenFit 2 at a discount then none of this will be an issue, but at full price it’s a tricky one to recommend to the masses.
(Image credit: Future)
Shokz OpenFit 2: Specifications
Water resistance
IP55
Active noise cancellation
No
Battery life
11 hours, 48 in total
Weight
9.4g ± 0.2g per earbud
Connectivity
Bluetooth 5.3
Earbud type
Open-ear
Compatible profiles
A2DP, AVRCP, HFP
Shokz OpenFit 2: Price and availability
Priced $179.95 / £169.00 (around AU$350, where sold)
Available from June 5th 2025 (announced January 2025)
Available in the US and UK, at the time of writing
The Shokz OpenFit 2 are priced at £169 / $179.95, hitting store shelves on June 5th 2025 in the UK, despite having been available since January in the US. The earbuds are also launching at the same time as the more premium Shokz OpenFit 2 Plus which are just slightly more expensive at £179, with US pricing unannounced at the time of writing.
This is a notable price increase, particularly in the UK, against the $159.95 / £129 of the previous Shokz OpenFit, and it’s also worth bearing in mind that the entry-level Shokz OpenFit Air, priced at $119.95 / £94, are still readily available via the company's website. This does make the OpenFit 2 a tricky sell to budget-conscious buyers, but I do think that when you factor in the amount of upgrades that have been crammed into the OpenFit’s successor, there’s a lot for the avid runner in your life to appreciate.
(Image credit: Future)
Shokz OpenFit 2: Features
Maintain traffic awareness while listening to music
Vastly improved battery life
Multi-point pairing
The main allure with the OpenFit 2 remains very much the same from every other product within Shokz’s wares. It is spatial (read also: environmental, traffic, general hubbub of life happening all around you) awareness. As any runner can attest, the last thing you want is to be caught off guard by a passing car or cyclist – if you don't have your wits about you then you can end up doing harm to yourself and others. However, going for a run without your favourite playlists is like going on a flight and staring at the tray table in front of you for the duration. Thankfully, Shokz’s open-ear format helps to bring together the best of both worlds.
Because the Shokz OpenFit 2 don’t block your ear canals in order to deliver sound, you can still hear everything that goes on around you, all while enjoying your go-to running tracks. It sounds simple enough, but it’s not easy to pipe good quality audio to ears when the product's drivers aren't covering them. It is a great feature to have in practice, and it's precisely why I’ve been using Shokz headphones and earbuds exclusively for the last several years when going for a run. For that reason alone, the Shokz OpenFit 2 will now supplant my existing Shokz headphones.
As you've no doubt guessed, the caveat to all of this is that Shokz’s products aren't great if you're trying to block out the world and focus. Simply put, with no noise cancellation to speak of, the OpenFit 2 are a terrible option to have for the commute or when working at a nearby cafe. It's not all negative however – I do find that the OpenFit 2, and earbuds of their ilk, are quite handy in an office environment as you can enjoy listening to a podcast as you work, but your colleagues won't have to flail their arms just to get your attention (unless it's a really good podcast).
Still, if you do want to use the OpenFit 2 in noisier environments, you can help to mitigate things by diving into the accompanying Shokz app and toggling the ‘Vocal’ setting to elevate voices and lead singers. There are other equaliser modes including ‘Bass Boost' and ‘Treble Boost’, but these are best enjoyed in quieter surroundings (Bass Boost is almost inaudible outdoors without cranking up the volume). Multi-point pairing has also found its way to the OpenFit 2 after being noticeably absent on the original OpenFit, so you can jump between devices without issue.
According to Shokz, the OpenFit 2 have the same four built-in noise cancelling mics as the OpenFit, but this time there’s some AI optimisation going on under the hood to improve the quality even further. While I will say that the actual quality of voice recordings with the microphones is fairly standard (legible but nothing to write home about), I was very impressed to see just how much heavy lifting the noise cancelling could do. Even with loud music blaring on my Sonos Ray nearby, I could still take down voice notes and listen to them without any hint of external sound getting in the way. For taking a quick call mid-run, the OpenFit 2 are more than up to the task.
Arguably the biggest shake-up on paper is the massive leap forward in battery life offered by the OpenFit 2, now boasting up to 11-hours of listening time on a single charge, and a total of 48-hours when the charging case is factored in. Given that the total use time capped out at 28-hours on the OpenFit, that’s a big improvement and it means you'll be able to get in more runs without needing to worry about giving the Shokz OpenFit 2 a top up.
Putting those claims to the test, I was able to drain about 10% from both earbuds after 30-minutes of playback at 50% volume. At that rate, it would have taken roughly five hours for the batteries to drop to 0%, but it's far more likely that you'll get closer to that 11-hour claim at a reasonable volume.
(Image credit: Shokz)
Features score: 4 / 5
Shokz OpenFit 2: Sound quality
New dual driver system
Rich bass and vocals
Easliy some of the best sounding open-ear earbuds I've tried
One of the upgrades that Shokz has been keen to point out is the inclusion of a dual driver system in each earbud for the OpenFit 2, which is designed to deliver enhanced clarity for both the bass and the vocals of any given track.
Coming in from my usual trusty pair of Shokz OpenRun Pro (which are a few years old now), the difference was immediate and tangible. Shokz was spot on in highlighting bass and vocals in particular as they both have a richer quality to them on the OpenFit 2. I knew this from the moment I kicked off a run with a tried and true classic, Linkin Park and Jay-Z’s Points of Authority / 99 Problems / One Step Closer mash-up – the opening guitar riff is as crisp and cutting as expected, but it’s when the backing vocals kick in that you can really hear the depth. And that’s only elevated once the bass drops (no small feat for earbuds of this type) to bring the whole song into view.
Further on in the playlist, the Black Eyed Peas’ Boom Boom Pow came up and I was impressed to see just how bouncy and impactful the percussion sounded throughout the song. Again, this is a pair of earbuds that attempting to convey sound without obstructing your ear canal, but as any fans of in-ear headphones can attest, that tends to be the way to get the most fulfilling sound quality, so the fact that the OpenFit 2 can still do justice to a song like this is quite something.
I did notice that at certain frequencies, the bass was unable to fully come to the surface and replicate what I'd expect from 'regular' buds. Megan Thee Stallion’s Opposite Day, a song that I rely on for weightlifting because of the thumping bass right from the start, just didn’t sound quite as powerful as it usually does with the OpenFit 2, but I will say that moments like this were certainly the exception to the norm.
If you prefer to listen to podcasts while you run, you won’t have any problems here as vocals come across as clearly as intended, although if you are in a busy area then you can always toggle the aforementioned Vocal equaliser to give it a bit of a boost.
At this money, the Shokz OpenFit 2 aren’t that far off some of the best earbuds you can buy, and I’ve lost track of the amount of times that the epic AirPods Pro 2 have dropped to around the same price during sales events. Even though I would sooner bring a pair of Shokz headphones or earbuds with me on a run ahead of anything else, I still use my AirPods the rest of the time, and if you’re tied to a strict budget then this might be something you have to weigh up at the checkout.
What is also odd is that for an extra £10, you can get the Shokz OpenFit 2 Plus, which add Dolby Atmos support for a more cinematic soundscape if you’re streaming video content. When you also throw the addition of wireless charging into the mix, I don’t know why you wouldn’t just go for the OpenFit 2 Plus, unless you’re desperate to hold on to a tenner.
Sound quality score: 4 / 5
Shokz OpenFit 2 (left) placed next to the OpenFit Air (right) (Image credit: Future)
Shokz OpenFit 2: Design
New silicone finish is very comfortable over long periods
The earbuds stay firmly in place when running
Physical inputs now sit alongside touch controls
If sound quality is the one area where the Shokz OpenFit 2 struggle to truly kick away from the competition, this is thankfully not the case where the design is concerned. These are a comfortable pair of open-fit earbuds that have been constructed with all-day wear in mind, a feat that’s largely achievable thanks to the new material used for the chassis.
The OpenFit 2 are largely encased in a soft silicone finish, which feels so comfortable against the ear that after a while, you start to forget they're there.
The hooks also remain sturdy and at no point during my runs with the Shokz OpenFit 2 was I ever concerned that the earbuds might become dislodged and lost, which is far more than I can say for most in-ear headphones which do not provide the same peace of mind.
One of the more welcome additions is a revamp of the control scheme on the OpenFit 2, finally bringing physical buttons into the mix. Both the OpenFit and the OpenFit Air relied entirely on touch controls which, I can tell you, was certainly a mixed bag from my experience with the latter. I could never quite wrap my head around the input system which is why, after a while, I ended up ditching them in favour of an older pair of Shokz headphones with physical controls.
This time around, there’s a push button sat on top of both earbuds and they can be customised (not independently) to recognise different actions. For example, I set the buttons to tweak the volume after a long press, and move either backwards or forwards through a playlist with a double click. There are still touch controls available, but they can only be assigned to wake your preferred digital assistant.
There are two colorways available, black and beige, and while they’re not quite as eye-catching as some of the more vibrant colours that Shokz has offered in the past, there is a refined quality about them that makes the earbuds feel stylish in their own way.
Sound quality score: 4 / 5
(Image credit: Future)
Shokz OpenFit 2: Value
Cheaper options are available within this market
The more feature-packed Shokz OpenFit 2+ aren't much pricier
It’s a shame – I do genuinely appreciate what Shokz has achieved with the OpenFit 2, what with a more comfortable design, improved sound quality and the inclusion of physical buttons (finally), but the one thing that holds it all back is the product’s pricing, which has left me scratching my head for two reasons.
First off, as I’ve mentioned a few times, $179.95 / £169 just feels far too expensive for a pair of open-ear headphones. Even though I still think that open-ear is the way to go if you’re an avid runner, or hoping to get into running, they’re just not great options for any other setting. This hasn’t been too much of an issue in the past thanks to cheaper pricing, but with this increase the Shokz OpenFit 2 are encroaching on the space typically held by more premium earbuds.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, the more premium version of these earbuds, the Shokz OpenFit 2 Plus, are only £10 more expensive but for that minimal amount you get wireless charging and Dolby Atmos compatibility which begs the question – why on earth would you opt for the regular OpenFit 2 when the OpenFit 2 Plus are almost the same price? I don’t know if this is an intentional tactic from Shokz to get people to upgrade to the pricier pick, but the result is that it undermines the OpenFit 2’s position on the market.
Value score: 3 / 5
(Image credit: Future)
Shokz OpenFit 2: Scorecard
Attributes
Notes
Rating
Features
Battery life is fantastic and there are tons of EQ options to play with.
4 / 5
Sound quality
Great within its category but it’ll never outdo in-ear headphones.
4 / 5
Design
Comfortable to wear and easier to use thanks to physical controls.
5 / 5
Value
A price increase and a similarly priced upgrade hurt these earbuds.
3 / 5
Should I buy the Shokz OpenFit 2?
Buy them if...
You’re an avid runner These are still some of the best earbuds you can buy for running, so if you regularly hit the track then you’ll love the spatial awareness and sound quality these provide.
You need all-day earbuds for the office With outstanding battery life, the OpenFit 2 are handy for the office as it means colleagues can still get your attention while you listen to music.
Don't buy them if...
You’re tied to a strict budget If you can’t afford both a pair of open-ear headphones and standard in-ear headphones, then the latter can provide better value overall.
You want wireless charging Given that wireless charging is available for just £10 more on the OpenFit 2 Plus, I don’t know why you wouldn’t make the upgrade for more versatile charging.
Also consider
Shokz OpenFit While the sound quality isn’t up to the same standard, these predecessors are still much cheaper and crucially provide the spatial awareness that runners are after. Read our full Shokz OpenFit review
Shokz OpenRun
These open-ear headphones are a much cheaper alternative from the same company, plus they’re incredibly quick to charge between runs. Read our full Shokz OpenRun review
(Image credit: Future)
How I tested
Tested for two weeks
Used in indoor and outdoor scenarios
Connected to both iPhone and Android handsets
For testing, I wore the Shokz OpenFit 2 over the course of two weeks. I began my initial tests by taking the earbuds with me for a run at a local park with slight elevation, to get an idea of how well they could stay in place.
I also took the earbuds with me on a trip to Central London, listening to music and podcasts against the backdrop of a commuter train, passing cars and conversations, as well as the occasional spot of roadworks.
The Coros Heart Rate Monitor is a strap-based monitor designed for your upper arm that uses optical tracking tech to measure blood volume, rather than electrocardiograph or ECG, which measures the heart's electrical signals. While many of the best heart rate monitors use ECG, optical sensors are found in the best smartwatches. Which begs the question: why does Coros' stand-alone HRM use optical sensors instead of ECG?
The short answer, from Coros, is that optical heart rate monitoring works by using light shone through your skin to see your blood flow. While watches can do a reasonable job on the wrist, there is a lot more blood higher up the arm, making a dedicated strap – which can be affixed tightly yet comfortably to that higher arm position – more accurate.
So, for your money, you are getting a more accurate optical heart rate monitor than a smartwatch, yet with arguably a more comfortable wearing position. Unlike a chest strap, it's a comfortable wear for both men and women of all body types and sizes, and to top it off you get a decent 38 hours of use with its rechargeable battery.
Thanks to Bluetooth connectivity, this can be used with many different devices from smartwatches and phones to bikes and gym machines. There's also a useful wear detection feature which means this can auto-power on and connect. All you need to do is put it on.
There is basic waterproofing, to 3ATM, but this is more to make it sweat and rain-proof – so don't expect this to be usable for swimming. You also won't find connectivity options like ANT+ here, so that may limit some people in terms of which devices this can be used with.
Coros Heart Rate Monitor key specs
Component
Coros Heart Rate Monitor
Dimensions
42.5 x 28.4 x 9.1mm
Weight
19g with strap
Fit
18-32cm standard, 24-43cm large
Case material
Plastic unit, with polyester fibre, nylon and spandex band
Connectivity
Bluetooth
Compatibility
3 simultaneous
Water resistance
3 ATM
Accelerometer
No
Battery
Rechargeable USB-A
Coros Heart Rate Monitor: Price and release date
Available to buy now in the US, UK, and Australia
Priced at $79 / £69 / AU$140 RRP
A similar price point as Garmin's HRM Pro
The Coros Heart Rate Monitor launched on June 27, 2023 and is available across the globe. It launched with a price of $79 in the US, £69 in the UK and $140 in Australia.
The Coros HRM is available in several colours thanks to a selection of band options, which you can pick at purchase. These include Grey, Lime and Orange. There is also an option to get a large version of the Grey if needed – more details on that in the design section.
You can buy the Coros HRM directly from Coros via sites like Amazon.
Price-wise, it's comparable to the Garmin HRM-Pro, so it's in line with the rest of its competitors without being either outstanding value or egregiously expensive.
Value score: 3.5/5
Coros HRM (Image credit: Future)
Coros Heart Rate Monitor: Design
Comfortable to wear
Easy to fit
Simple design
The Coros Heart Rate Monitor is all about simplicity and as such this is a doddle to wear. Since this is made to go on your bicep, once you've got the right size adjusted to suit you using the velcro fitting, it's a simple case of sliding it up your arm to pop it on.
The strap materials are a combination of polyester fiber, nylon and spandex, which all equate to a very comfortable feel. But, crucially, this is flexible enough to slip on and off with a stretch, but tight enough to stay in place without it feeling too tight or uncomfortable.
At 19g the total weight is barely noticeable. When you consider people run with large phones in arm strap cases and barely notice them, you can imagine how unobtrusive this feels.
Does this feel more comfy than a chest strap? The answer in my case was a yes, but that may vary from person to person. I certainly like the fact this slips on easily, and thanks to that auto-wear detection sensor it'll connect up quickly and easily too.
This is made to fit biceps of sizes between 18 and 32cm. So unless you're very slim or a bodybuilder, this is likely to fit you comfortably regardless of gender. If you are bigger in the arm area then there is the option to go for a larger variant of the strap at point of purchase, which accommodates 24-43cm biceps.
Coros HRM (Image credit: Future)
The sensor setup itself comprises five LEDs with four photodetectors. That combination, representing the best optical heart rate sensors from Coros right now, should mean this is fairly future-proof, unlikely to be eclipsed by more accurate technology for a while. That said, it won't offer SpO2 measurements, so if you're after O2 features then you may want to keep looking elsewhere.
There is an LED light on the side of the main unit which acts as a useful communication light. When on charge this will glow orange until the battery is full after two hours, and it then turns solid green so you know it's good to go.
The charger is USB-A at one end and a proprietary magnetic attachment at the end of the HRM connection. While it's easy to plug into many different power sources, we would have preferred the more efficient, up-to-date USB-C.
The strap is also washable, where the main unit can slide off, making it possible to keep that looking fresh for long periods.
Design score: 4/5
Coros HRM (Image credit: Future)
Coros Heart Rate Monitor: Features
App is minimal
Lots of third-party app compatibility
No swim tracking
The Coros Heart Rate Monitor can be paired to many devices and works with the app you want to use. But there is an included Coros app that you can use, ideal if you've already got other Coros devices like the Coros Pace Pro.
The Coros app is fine for analyzing data, but it won't track you while you're out exercising. So you will need to use a third-party app, like Strava. I connected the HRM by opening the Coros app, and once connected, I could just open Strava, slip on the armband, and it would pull in the HR data directly.
I found this helpful for heart rate training or zone tracking. Generally speaking, I used the phone to collect the data and then only looked at it when analyzing my effort after I was back and showered off, so you'll need to take your phone in a chest, waist or arm-mounted running case.
Coros HRM (Image credit: Future)
It's also worth noting that if you already have a smartwatch and simply want to add a more accurate heart rate tracker than the built-in optical option, this can connect to your smartwatch too. And yes, this did prove more accurate than wrist-based options during our testing, so this could be a viable alternative to a chest strap.
The app is the only way to know an accurate measure of the HRM's battery life. Sure the light on the side can give you rough guidance, but that's not likely to serve you before a run or ride where you'll want reassurance you have enough juice to go the distance. A push notification would have been helpful when connected too.
It's worth noting that this can broadcast heart rate to up to three devices simultaneously. So you could have your watch and phone connected to your bike computer at the same time, for example. I haven't tested this feature yet, but it's good to have the option should the need arise.
Features: 3/5
Coros app (Image credit: Future)
Coros Heart Rate Monitor: Performance
Good accuracy
Easy to use
Very comfortable
One of the most important things to mention here is comfort. This is more comfy to wear than a chest strap, while offering almost the same level of accuracy. It's easy to slip on and off, less noticeable to wear and can also be kept hidden to avoid knocks – with the option to slide it under your sleeve.
While a wrist-worn heart rate monitor in a watch can be useful, wearing this on your bicep is so much more accurate. As mentioned it's a better spot, with more blood, for clearer readings. But it's also higher up the arm with far less movement when running and way less bumping when riding a bike. All that combines to offer great levels of accuracy across sports while staying comfy.
Where this falls down compared to a chest strap is battery life. It's decent, hitting close to the claimed 38 hours in real-world use, but still doesn't compare to the one or two year battery power of some chest straps.
Coros HRM on the left and chest strap on the right. (Image credit: Future)
In one run (image above), with an early hill climb which I use to beat any chance of averaging explaining accuracy, I did spot some issues. I had a competitor chest strap on in addition to the arm-based Coros HRM connected to my phone. On the hill climb, my heart quickly jumped to 170 and the chest strap kept up. However, the Coros strap lagged behind, reading 155. It did catch up, but was a few seconds behind.
After that, as the distance lengthened and those averages came into play, it got even closer, but I was aware of that initial blip.
So while you can see the early discrepancy, generally both the Coros and chest-mounted HRM show similar readings with near-identical max and average heart rate data. It was certainly noticeably more accurate than a wrist-worn optical heart rate sensor is capable of offering.
Performance score: 4/5
Coros HRM: Scorecard
Category
Comment
Score
Value
In line with competition, making it reasonable.
3.5/5
Design
Very well designed to be comfy, work well, be easy-to-use and accurate.
4.5/5
Features
Great app compatibility but loses points on lack of swim support.
3/5
Performance
Accurate, comfortable and easy to use.
4/5
Total
A superb option for accuracy and comfort with charge support.
4/5
Coros HRM (Image credit: Future)
Coros Heart Rate Monitor: Buy it if...
You're need true heart rate training A dedicated HRM detects changes to your heart rate more accurately than a watch alone, allowing you to zone train with quality.
You want comfort and ease The Coros HRM is very comfortable and easy to slip on and off with that auto turn-on and -off functionality, making it a pleasure to use.
Coros Heart Rate Monitor: don't buy it if...
You want to see your data Unless you own a Coros or other smartwatch, then seeing your data isn't easy when phone connected to this HRM.
You want the best battery While battery life here is good, it's not chest strap level performance so consider that charging will be a part of this use.
Designed for multi-sport use, the HRM-Pro is the most advanced heart rate strap Garmin produces, although it’s probably of greater interest to those who already own Garmin products.
The MyZone MZ-Switch isn’t just a chest strap. The center sensor node features an ECG monitor as well as an optical sensor and pops out so it can be worn on the wrist like a smartwatch.
I used the Coros HRM for a few weeks to test. I did this across running and cycling mainly and mixed in longer steady trips out as well as hills and sprints to get a range of results. I compared using a wrist-worn Garmin, a chest strap and, at one point, an optical armband too. I used this with a few different apps to try out how the data could be used, shared and analyzed.
The Tozo 6 is unlikely to make it into our guide to the best smartwatches, but it's certainly good value for money, comparable with some of the best cheap fitness trackers. What you get for the $79.99 / £54 / around AU$111 price tag is pretty impressive, although you’ll be purchasing it knowing its limited feature set. Despite being relatively feature-rich, there are a lot of limitations. We’ll get into those alongside what’s good and commendable about this budget-friendly option below.
The Tozo S6 looks almost identical to the Apple Watch SE, a cheap dupe. I appreciate it can be difficult to make smartwatches stand out from each other, but if you put these two smartwatches next to each other, you’d be amazed at how similar they are. It’s not even just the shape, but also the location of the crown and secondary button, as well as the strap's style.
The Tozo S6 plastic case boasts a smooth curved bezel from back to front, culminating in a sizable 1.82-inch AMOLED display. Tozo has done a superb job of engineering a screen that is both clear and bright, especially for the price. Colors are generally replicated accurately, with a slight tendency towards being too vibrant. Customizable watch faces are an expected, but welcome addition.
On the right-hand side, you’ll find a rotating crown above a secondary button. The crown performs nicely with sufficient resistance and satisfying ‘feedback’ to enable predictable and controlled scrolling. The secondary button protrudes from the case and is easy to locate without looking.
The silicone strap took a while to install due to some rather fiddly pins but once in place, it was pretty comfortable. Once tightened, the rest of the strap folds up underneath so it’s not flapping around. At first, I thought this would be unbearably uncomfortable but in reality, it caused no discomfort at all.
(Image credit: Future)
Moving on from the design and onto the features, we find a smartwatch that covers all the expected bases when it comes to smartwatches, health trackers, and fitness trackers.
The Tozo S6 provides the ability to track metrics, including heart rate monitoring and blood oxygen levels. Unfortunately, the watch is slow to generate results, with a heart rate measurement taking upwards of 30 seconds. This is noticeably slow compared to other smartwatches, including the Huawei Watch GT5, which takes between 10 and 15 seconds. Having to wait for metrics is one of the downsides of paying so little for the watch.
Exercise activities can be tracked using one of 10 sports modes, although more can be added by using the app, which is a slightly odd system. Your desired sports mode can be located by swiping up and down through the list, although the scrolling experience is far from smooth and reliable. However, once in, the interface is actually quite nice; stats during runs and cycles, such as time elapsed, calories burned and distance traveled are prominently displayed, enabling them to be easily seen even during intense exercise or adverse weather conditions.
The accuracy of metrics collected during my test cycles is comparable with other smartwatches that I’d worn while cycling the same routes. These include the recently-tested Huawei GT5 and Suunto Race S, which are both at the more premium end of the market. Recorded activities are nicely displayed in the Tozo app.
I liked how these were organized and presented in a calendar format, with each one showing a set of key stats and presented in easy-to-digest graphs. For such a cheap smartwatch, the Tozo app is actually comparable with anything you’d find from Huawei or Samsung.
Smartwatch features include receiving notifications and reminders. These are delivered reliably and instantly, as long as the device is connected through the app. I did find the device dropping connection more often than I would have liked, but thankfully the pairing process is both quick and easy. For the price, I was impressed that Bluetooth calling was available, although you have to add contacts into the Tozo app first. Audio quality could be improved, but what are we really expecting for one of the most budget smartwatches around?
The watch is advertised as lasting around 15 days on a single charge, although I barely managed 10 days during my ‘only check the time and notifications’ testing period. With activity tracking and health monitoring performed each day, the battery life dropped nearer to 5 days.
Tozo S6: Specifications
Price:
$79.99 US / £54 UK
Dimensions:
44.5*38.5*10.8 mm
Weight:
39.5g
Case/Bezel:
PC+ABS
Display:
1.85-inch AMOLED 390x450 ppi
GPS:
None
Battery life:
Up to 15-days battery life
Connection:
Bluetooth
Water resistance:
1 ATM
Tozo S6: Price and availability
$79.99 US / £54 UK
One size only
The Tozo S6 is only available in one size and one color (black). It retails at an unbelievably low $79.99 US / £54 UK. Shipping takes between three and seven days. Every purchase includes a 30-day money-back guarantee, a one-year hassle-free warranty, and lifetime customer support.
Tozo S6: Scorecard
Category
Comment
Score
Value
For $79.99 / £54, you'd be hard pressed to get anything better.
4.5/5
Design
An Apple Watch-style design but without the class. The 1.85-inch AMOLED screen is a redeeming quality.
3.5/5
Features
With only relatively basic and limited health and exercise tracking, the Tozo S6 doesn’t score too highly.
3.5/5
Performance
Given the cost, the performance is quite impressive. But compared to more expensive alternatives, it really lacks features and accuracy.
3.5/5
Total
A basic smartwatch with the budget price to match
3.5/5
Tozo S6: Should I buy?
(Image credit: Future)
Buy if it...
You want a cheap smartwatch At $79.99 / £54, there aren’t many cheaper options. It’s incredible that you’ll still benefit from a range of tracking for health and exercise.
You want a crisp and clear display The 1.85-inch AMOLED Ultra-Clear screen looks fantastic.
You are only a casual tracker of exercise The limited tracking options are good for generalists but not for tracking specific sports.
Don't buy it if...
You like a premium smartwatch At $79.99 / £54, almost everything about the Tozo S6 is cheap. It also looks cheap and if that’s not what you want, then I’d steer clear.
You want good fitness tracking For better tracking of your exercise and fitness, you’d be better off investing in one of the budget Fitbit watches.
I wore the Tozo S6 for over a month, during which time I tracked a range of activities, including walking, cycling, and running. I also tested every single health-tracking feature that the smartwatch offers. I paired the watch with my iPhone although there’s also a Tozo Android app.
Brompton is only one year away from celebrating 50 years of its inception. That is a whole lot of bike development experience, but Brompton’s entry into the electric bike market happened a lot more recently, in 2018. Despite that, they’re already making some of the best electric bikes around and certainly some of the best folding e-bikes on the market.
The Brompton formula has remained largely unchanged despite the release of electric versions of the C Line and P Line, but the all-new G Line is a radical departure. The frame shape and classic 3-point folding mechanism that the company is known for remain the same, but it boasts chunkier tyres and wider handlebars for rougher paths.
Having used it as my main commuter bike for over two months, I’m still torn as to how I feel about it. On the one hand, the engineering and quality to deliver a great riding experience are there, but I just don’t know what to make of the off-road enhancements. While it’ll handle gravel, cobbles, and single tracks better than other Bromptons, is anyone really going to be riding this on proper dirt tracks and difficult terrain?
I suppose only time will be able to answer that question, but from my point of view, it’s definitely the most comfortable and reliable Brompton e-bike I’ve ever used. The wider handlebars make for more predictable handling, while chunkier tyres make light work of potholes and uneven roads. I won’t be taking it off-roading, but I certainly wouldn’t trade it in for a C or P Line.
Brompton Electric G Line: Price and availability
(Image credit: Future)
$3,300 USD / £3,499 UK / $7,250 AUD
Expensive for a folding bike
Premium build quality for the price
The cost of the Brompton Electric G-Line puts it firmly between the price points of the C Line at the lower end and the P Line at the higher end. The price is hard to stomach, but for the money, you are guaranteed excellent-grade materials and superb build quality. Put simply, they are built to last and well worth the money.
Value score: 3.5/5
Brompton Electric G Line: Design
(Image credit: Future)
Chunky tires
Wide handlebars
Four-speed setup
Brompton's iconic three-point fold continues to function well despite the larger wheels, increased tire size, and widened handlebars. As a result, it can be packed into the back of a car or popped on a train, albeit not as easily as the smaller Brompton models. You also get an adjustable seat height and a long handlebar stem, and there's a 250W motor that drives the e-bike forward. In many ways, the G Line is like every other Brompton.
But also, in many ways, it's very different. Most noticeable of all are the 20-inch wheels. They're not too big to affect the smooth folding mechanism, but they are large enough to stand out. The chunky Schwalbe G-One All Round 54-406s not only look fantastic thanks to a tan wall finish but are also puncture-resistant. I haven’t had a puncture in over 600 miles and don’t expect to have one anytime soon.
Then there are the wide handlebars that have been custom-designed for the G Line. Alongside the tires, this might just be my favorite thing about the e-bike. Having ridden a number of Brompton bikes, I can honestly say that the G Line is by far the most stable, due in part to the widened handlebars.
The G-Line is also equipped with hydraulic disc brakes, a first for Brompton. In my opinion, the decision to go hydraulic is long overdue. I found the brakes to be reliable in all weathers and had no need to carry out any adjustments or maintenance on them. Whether Brompton will go down that route for future product releases, only time will tell.
Finally, the G-Line is a four-speed setup, which historically has been the go-to number for Brompton. Having taken the bike across a variety of terrains, including up some pretty serious hills, I would have preferred a few extra gears. Two at either end would be ideal, taking the total up to eight. As with Brompton’s other ranges, I imagine it will introduce a model with more gears at a later date.
Design Score: 4/5
Brompton Electric G Line: Performance
(Image credit: Future)
Certainly not a replacement for a dedicated gravel bike
Larger size and extra weight affect portability
Greater stability on predictable surfaces
I've thought long and hard about how to assess the performance of this new Brompton e-bike. I've flip-flopped between treating it as any other folding e-bike and assessing it on its off-road merits, and I'm not sure I've really landed yet. This indecision is probably largely due to the fact that in attempting to create a gravel bike, of sorts, they've actually compromised some of its portable qualities.
Let me be clear. This is no replacement for a dedicated gravel bike. At a push, you might utilize it as a commuter bike from Monday to Friday and on some minimally demanding wooded routes on the weekend. But that's as far as the G-Line will take you.
The off-road limitations center around the lack of stability, especially when riding out of the saddle. The wider handlebars and larger tires help out a little bit, but nowhere near enough to really push the bike to the limit. I also didn't trust it enough to deliver under more extreme conditions, such as through thicker mud. As I've said, simple trails with limited obstacles are fine, but serious off-road enthusiasts will be left wanting.
Everything was much rosier on my daily commutes. In fact, it was actually the highest-performing Brompton e-bike that I've ever ridden. I loved the stable handling and confidence to go up and down kerbs. The additional weight provided a feeling of security, although it's definitely less nippy than the C-Line or P-Line models.
But at the end of any commute comes the need to fold it up and transport it into either the office, onto a train, or into the back of the car. This is where I had a few problems. At over 16 kg, it’s significantly heavier than other Bromptons. I’m fairly fit and healthy, but I still had to be careful how I was lifting it. The folded size is also a lot less compact, so if you’re hoping to store it in tight spaces, then I’d recommend checking the dimensions.
Overall, I enjoyed my time with the G-Line, but only while I stayed away from gravel tracks. Buy it if you want a more stable Brompton ride and are prepared to handle the extra weight.
Performance score: 3.5/5
Brompton Electric G Line: Battery life
(Image credit: Future)
20-40 miles per full battery
Four-hour recharge
Battery makes weight front-loaded
The range of this e-bike is very similar to all the other Bromptons I've tested. This is no surprise given the similar battery capacity. If we're going to drill down into the number, then in reality, the G Line actually fares slightly worse, probably due to the extra tire friction. As a result, I only ever managed to achieve a maximum of 40 miles per charge, with 20 miles being more common. I do love full pedal assist, after all.
This range might be too limiting for some, but if you know you'll regularly be in reach of a charger, then it won't cause too much of a problem. With a daily commute of 14 miles, I found myself having to recharge the battery most days. An empty-to-full recharge takes around four hours and is ideal for a daytime recharge between the two legs of a commute.
The battery sits at the front of the e-bike, which helps balance the steering a little, but is far from ideal when considering the overall balance. This is especially the case if you try lifting the bike.
On a previous Brompton e-bike, I did experience battery cutouts when going over big bumps, but I had no such problem with this G Line. I was glad of this, especially given that the bike is designed for off-roading. The battery is quick and easy to remove and install, although I'd still like a secure solution for locking the battery into place.
Battery life score: 3.5/5
Brompton Electric G Line: Scorecard
Buy it if...
You want a foldable off-road e-bike
With chunkier tires and more stability, the Brompton G Line is a great option.
You need an all-purpose solution
The G-Line is able to bridge the gap between city riding and off-roading. Despite not being the best on dirt tracks, it is one of the best all-rounders I’ve seen.
Don't buy it if...
You’re on a budget
The G Line Brompton is far from cheap and to be avoided if you want something more affordable.
You’re a Brompton purist
With chunkier tires and wider handlebars, the Electric G Line is definitely a deviation away from the original Brompton.
Also consider
(Image credit: Future)
ENGWE MapFour N1 Air
The lightest 100 km range carbon e-bike around. A perfect e-bike solution for commuters. Read our full review.
Tenways CGO600 Pro
The magnetic torque sensor and carbon belt drive deliver smooth and seamless performance. Read our full review.
How I tested the Brompton Electric G Line
Having tested a number of 'standard' Brompton e-bikes, I was pumped to get my hands on the first of this new line of bikes. Having unpacked and unfolded it, I made the e-bike my main form of transport for well over a month. Living in the countryside provided ample opportunity to take it off-road, while my daily commute enabled me to test it in more predictable environments. As part of the review, I clocked up several hundred miles.
The Nike Vomero 18 is new for 2025 and is Nike's new king of cushioning. Replacing the Invincible 3, the Nike Vomero 18 combines ZoomX and React X foam, as well as the largest stack height we've ever seen in the Vomero line, 46mm.
They take their place as the third shoe in Nike's recalibrated road running line-up, alongside the Structure range for runners who overpronate, and the popular Pegasus 41 as an everyday trainer.
The Nike Vomero 18 is absolutely a high-mileage shoe designed for slower runs, recovery, and long distances. You won't be setting any track records in them, but as a big, squishy shoe, they're definitely some of the best running shoes out there.
(Image credit: Future)
The Nike Vomero 18 contends with another recent shoe I tried, the Under Armour Infinite Elite 2. Whereas the Elite 2 is a really disappointing package from a style standpoint, the Vomero 18 looks exquisite. We picked them up in the new Men's Barely Green/Hyper Crimson/Barely Volt/Metallic Silver, and I have to say they're absolutely stunning.
The colors are electrifying, although there are more neutral tones available if these look a bit much. The overall silhouette is really impressive, and once on they really stand out. If you want a head-turning trainer for the gym or road, this is a prime contender.
The upper is extremely soft and cushioned, and the whole trainer screams quality. Another gripe of mine with the Elite 2 was the rather cheap-feeling foam. By contrast, the Nike Vomero 18 shoes feel much more premium and exude build quality.
(Image credit: Future)
Stepping into the Vomero 18 for the first time, I was immediately struck by how cushioned and soft the interior felt overall, however, there's one standout catch. Compared to other shoes I've used – including Nike's own Pegasus 41 – the Vomero 18 feels extremely snug.
During all my testing, I found the Vomero 18 to be ever-so-slightly too small at my standard size 10, and on reflection, I would recommend sizing up to pretty much everyone. Coupled with the pronounced arch, the fit is extremely close and feels ripe for going up .5 on the size charts.
(Image credit: Future)
Built with long, slow, steady-state runs in mind, the Vomero 18 has a pronounced 10mm heel-toe drop and an enjoyable rocker design. That's more than the aforementioned Elite 2, and might put some folk off, but I've generally found the rolling motion of the Vomero 18 to be extremely pleasant.
(Image credit: Future)
The combination of the ZoomX and React X foams serves the Vomero 18 extremely well. Compared to the Elite 2, they're still squishy and soft (possibly moreso), but are much more stable by contrast.
I've had absolutely no wobbles or complaints despite the elevated stack height, and the Vomero 18 is very pleasant to run in, mile after mile. With the enormous heel stack, these will naturally favor heel strikers, however, there's so much cushioning on the shoe in general that they'll suit pretty much everyone.
While on the slightly heavier and bulkier side, the Vomero 18 shoes don't feel overly cumbersome, and I've had no concerns with overheating.
Nike Vomero 18: price & availability
$150 / £135 / AU$220
Men's and women's options, six colors
Size up
The Nike Vomero 18 running shoes are available from Nike.com and a host of third-party resellers in the US, UK, Australia, and beyond.
Priced at $150 / £135 / AU$ 220, they have been extremely popular since their launch in February 2025 and are often sold out on Nike's website. As such, they're extremely difficult to find at a discount.
As noted, the Vomero 18 is too snug to be described as true to size. I'd recommend sizing up half a size. If you can, be sure to test these out at your local running store, or buy them from somewhere you can return them if the size isn't right. Most retailers will let you return shoes within two weeks, provided you haven't used them outdoors.
Value score: 4/5
(Image credit: Future)
Nike Vomero 18: specifications
Nike Vomero 18: scorecard
Should I buy the Nike Vomero 18?
(Image credit: Future)
Buy if it...
You want a striking long-distance shoe
The Nike Vomero 18 is definitely one of the most stylish long-distance options on the market.
You want brilliant cushioning
The Vomero 18 offers some of the best cushioning I have experienced in a running shoe.
Don't buy it if...
Your feet are on the larger side
The Vomero 18 are very snug; for some, even sizing up may not be enough.
You want a lighter, speedier shoe
The Vomero 18 shoes are fairly weighty and won't see you setting record times.
Also consider
(Image credit: Future)
Altra FWD Via
Our current favorite for long-distance, slow runs, also with a rocker.
The Honor Watch 5 Ultra is, from a hardware standpoint, a very good smartwatch indeed. It’s got a lovely 1.5-inch 466 x 466px AMOLED display, which is bright and butter-smooth; its case is made of titanium and its screen from Sapphire glass; it looks like a classic dress watch in the black aesthetic of my test model, but the fluoro band keeps things sporty – you could wear this for anything from wakeboarding sessions to weddings, and it wouldn’t be out of place.
It’s got a 480mAh battery that lasts around five days based on our tests – an impressive performance. The screen is pretty and the watch is intuitive to navigate, with health features that stand up to scrutiny. The digital crown, a feature often missed in non-Apple offerings, allows for easy scrolling.
So, will I wear it again? Unfortunately, no.
I love the watch’s design, I love its low price point, and I like the simple layout of its UI. I found it very useful, from the Find My Phone option to the sleep tracking. I think it’s a great watch, but ultimately undeserving of its Ultra moniker.
It tracks 100 sports, but most of these modes are very basic in their metric collection. There are no third-party apps, essential to customizing your smartwatch experience; you’re stuck with what's installed on the watch out of the box. There’s no Strava, no Spotify, no WhatsApp, although you can view messages with the notifications functionality. The watch does have an NFC chip onboard, but it’s not designed to support banking payments. Customization options are limited to an (albeit generous) selection of free watch faces.
The end result is a watch that looks well designed from the outside, but which feels strangely hollow inside. In many respects it’s a high-performing and great-value device, but the lack of features makes it hard to recommend.
Honor Watch 5 Ultra: Price and availability
(Image credit: Future)
Priced at €279 in the EU (around $300 / £235 / AU$480)
Around the same price as the cheaper Samsung and Apple watches
When and where you’ll be able to buy it is yet to be confirmed
The Honor Watch 5 Ultra is priced at €279 in Europe Union countries, which converts to around $300 / £235 / AU$480. That’s a great price for a watch with this build quality; it’s only a little bit more expensive than the Apple Watch SE.
However, Honor hasn’t yet confirmed when, or where, outside of the EU, you’ll be able to buy the Honor Watch 5 Ultra, due to international restrictions imposed on the brand similar to those on Huawei. We do know that it’ll be compatible with handsets running Android 9.0 and iOS 13.0, as well as the best Honor phones.
Value score: 3/5
Specifications
Honor Watch 5 Ultra: Design
(Image credit: Future)
Titanium and Sapphire glass
Simple UI
Digital crown
The Honor Watch 5 Ultra is, as mentioned above, an extraordinarily well-designed smartwatch (from a hardware standpoint) for its price. As well as high-quality innards like that great battery and powerful processor, the watch has a pleasant, unique octagonal shape with a grade 5 titanium case and bezel.
Sapphire glass protects the touchscreen, and together with the casing and fluoroelastomer band (leather is also available) this is certainly a watch that can withstand knocks, bumps and scrapes. I wore it non-stop for a week, and I was never worried about dinging it.
It looks like a premium dress watch, and the metal casing feels exceptionally premium – it’s certainly a better-looking watch than the otherwise comparable, and more expensive, Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra.
The watch has just one button, and the user experience has been vastly improved with the addition of a digital crown, which allows for easy scrolling. The Honor Watch 5 Ultra’s all-in-one button allows for an easy snapshot of your health, among other things, similar to Samsung’s body composition feature.
The fact that the magnetic charger is USB-A rather than the more powerful USB-C is a slight disappointment, but the fast-charging still works fine. Another disappointment is that there’s only one size; like many of its contemporaries, Honor is not taking into account those with smaller wrists.
Design score: 4/5
Honor Watch 5 Ultra: Features
(Image credit: Future)
100 workout modes
8GB of storage
No third-party apps or NFC payment
Things are a little more limited in the features department. With no third-party apps – which elevates the likes of the OnePlus Watch 3 from a nice curiosity into an essential wrist assistant – you miss out on deep interactions with everyday apps like Gmail, your maps service of choice, Keep Notes, Spotify, Strava, Komoot, your Wallet of choice, and so on.
The basic feature set is all you’re going to get. It’s not awful; you get notifications, call dismissal, on-phone music controls, 8GB storage for your music, which you can control with Honor’s native MagicOS Music app, but nothing terribly exciting.
The watch does have an NFC chip, but without a Wallet app you can’t really use it. I can view my WhatsApp messages on my wrist via the basic notifications service, but I can’t reply to them. You can see how my frustrations with the Honor Watch 5 Ultra were mounting during the week I wore it.
Things look a lot better from a health perspective. Honor’s suite of health and fitness features are good, with the new Health Scan feature first on the docket. It takes heart rate, blood oxygen and stress readings, collating them with sleep stats and your height and weight (which you input into the app) to check for outliers that could point to potential issues.
Sleep tracking is also great, with your sleep stages broken down in a similar manner to competitors such as the Samsung Galaxy Ring. The Watch 5 Ultra offers a Sleep Score with some additional insights based on how much sleep it believes you’ve had.
Workout support is solid, with over 100 sports modes, but very few of them offer more sophisticated metrics than heart rate and estimated calories burned. Running and swimming do offer specialized metrics, however, tracking pace per kilometer, stride length and stride frequency on the roads, while counting strokes and taking pool length into account during swimming.
Features score: 3/5
Honor Watch 5 Ultra: Performance
(Image credit: Future)
Some UI frustrations
Good battery life
Accurate workouts
I wore the Honor Watch 5 Ultra for a full week, testing it on runs, in the pool, and during sleep. The watch accurately estimated my steps, coming within a few hundred steps of my Samsung Galaxy Ring, and tracked sleep stages with similar accuracy.
I got a Healthy Morning Report and Sleep Score in the Honor Health app breaking everything down for me, with the usual insights – drink less caffeine during the day for better sleep, and so on – but Honor’s metrics and context are nowhere near as sophisticated as Samsung’s sleep animal chronotypes feature.
Run tracking served me well over the week, with all the usual pace, stride and speed features as well as GPS maps and elevation. A nice touch was a ‘fat reduced’ metric, telling me in one instance that my 8km run burned approximately 4g of fat. Swim tracking was also good, and the watch successfully identified my dominant stroke as ‘mixed’ as I swapped from front crawl to breaststroke during the workout.
The battery performed as described, lasting through around four and a half days of near-constant wear.
I’m happy with the performance here, but it would have been nice to be able to add to the limited features on offer with third-party apps. The frustration of not being able to use so many basic smartwatch functions with my phone made the device less useful, overall, than its competitors.
Performance score: 4/5
Scorecard
Honor Watch 5 Ultra: Should I buy?
(Image credit: Future)
Buy it if...
You own an Honor phone
If you own an Honor phone, this is the perfect accompanyment, and probably Honor’s best smartwatch to date.
You don’t need third-party apps
If you don’t need WhatsApp and the like on your phone, this makes for a great fitness tracker.
You want a good-looking watch
There’s no denying it: this watch, with its titanium casing, looks fab.
Don't buy it if...
Money is no object
If you’ve got a bigger budget, you could go for a top-end Garmin watch or Apple Watch Ultra.
You’re on Google or Apple
You’ll be better served with a Wear OS or Apple Watch for better ecosystem integration.View Deal
I wore the Honor Watch 5 Ultra for a full week, draining the battery down completely and monitoring runs, swims and strength workouts. I spent time using the UI to its fullest extent, testing the digital crown and button functionalities, and wore it as my daily driver. I also wore it to bed to examine its sleep tracking capabilities and tried the health monitoring metrics such as the new Health Scan feature.
