Many tech reviewers have suggested that smart rings could signal the end of smartwatches. But based on my extensive testing of the best smart rings, I can confidently say they won’t suit everyone. While it might seem that wearing a tracker on your finger could be more comfortable and convenient, this isn't always the case. You’ll also need to consider accuracy, design, price, and tracking features.

It may also be helpful to consider some of the best fitness trackers on the market. There’s an overlap between the best smartwatches and fitness trackers: although smart rings are gaining popularity, many find that budget-friendly fitness trackers can offer a more reliable and straightforward way to monitor health, sleep, and fitness.

Drawing from my years of experience testing smart rings and smartwatches, I've created this guide so you can decide whether a smart ring or a smartwatch is right for you based on your budget, preferences, and priorities.

Smart ring vs smartwatch: Comfort, design and durability

Choosing between a smartwatch and a smart ring largely depends on personal preference. Smartwatches offer adjustable straps for a perfect fit and can be customized by swapping out straps with different materials and colors.

However, if you find wearing something on your wrist uncomfortable, a smart ring might be a better alternative. While smart rings don’t offer adjustable sizing, many companies will send you a sizing kit with plastic dummy rings to help you find the ideal one for you. Most of the ones I’ve tested so far have been incredibly comfortable with a snug fit. 

They're designed to be comfortable enough to wear overnight, whereas many people dislike wearing watches to bed. 

Although these rings are fixed in design, they tend to be more discreet and resemble jewelery, bringing you a sleeker, less sporty look compared to most smartwatches and fitness trackers. However, many do still seem bulky when you compare them to regular rings, especially on smaller hands – don’t let the marketing messages that they’re all incredibly slim and dainty fool you.

Like all wearable technology, smart rings are also susceptible to wear and tear. During my tests, those with matte black finishes, like the Ultrahuman Ring Air and the Circular Ring Slim, showed significant signs of scratching after just a few days. More premium smartwatches, on the other hand, are designed with durability in mind.

• Winner: Smart rings

Smart ring vs smart watch: Screens, apps and smartphone features

If you prefer a device with a screen, you'll need to choose a smartwatch or a larger fitness tracker. Smart rings are designed to be more passive – though some models now include added features, like vibrating alarms. This makes smart rings an excellent choice if you're trying to reduce your screen time but still want to monitor your health. Alternatively, you could consider a screenless wrist-based tracker, like the Whoop 4.0, which focuses purely on fitness tracking without digital distractions.

While the lack of a screen might be part of the smart ring appeal, consider whether you might miss this feature during activities like running, using apps or when you want to control music playback from your phone. For many, the desire to disconnect from screens is strong. But if you’re moving from a smartwatch or fitness tracker to a smart ring, it’s worth thinking about whether this will impact your lifestyle, especially if you're keen on tracking specific activities from your wrist in real-time, like workouts.

On the other hand, smartwatches, especially those with LTE connectivity, offer a world of possibilities. They can function as standalone devices, capable of sending SOS alerts and making calls. Many also feature physical controls, built-in voice assistants, and apps, making them much more than just fitness trackers. Think of them as your comprehensive digital companions.

• Winner: Smartwatches

Smart ring vs smart watch: Sleep tracking, energy and wellbeing

One significant advantage of smart rings is their accuracy in sleep tracking thanks to the data they collect, like heart rate, movement and even temperature. For those who find wrist-worn devices uncomfortable at night, a smart ring might also be a more suitable option. Generally, I’ve found the smart rings I’ve tested to be more comfortable for overnight wear, though it's worth noting that a poorly fitting ring or flashing sensors can disrupt sleep.

Many top smart rings are primarily designed to monitor sleep and give you information about your energy levels and overall well-being rather than focusing primarily on fitness. This makes them an excellent choice for those prioritizing a holistic view of their health, although most high-end smartwatches and fitness trackers also track these metrics too. 

Oura and Ultrahuman offer detailed feedback on your daily energy levels and readiness for exercise in their apps, as well as giving you information about the best time to eat, sleep and drink caffeine. This type of feedback isn’t unique – for example, Garmin offers similar suggestions about energy levels – but it does highlight how smart rings are differentiating their offerings from other devices.

It's important to mention that while many smartwatches and fitness trackers, like the best Apple Watches, are just as effective at sleep tracking, they may require nightly charging, which can be really inconvenient. Just like smartwatches, battery life varies significantly among smart rings: for example, the latest Oura Ring Generation 3 lasts up to 7 days on a single charge, whereas the Circular Ring Slim needs recharging after just 2 days.

• Winner: Smart rings

Smart ring vs smart watch: Fitness tracking, sensors and accuracy

Many of the leading smart rings can track your movement, and they’re getting better at monitoring your workouts – especially when you add activities manually via their app. However, smartwatches and fitness trackers currently provide the best solution for detailed data on speed, heart rate, laps, and other specific metrics.

While some may claim that smart rings can perform all the functions of smartwatches and fitness trackers, they fall short in delivering comprehensive fitness data and (obviously) cannot display this information in real-time, because there's no screen. 

This is probably why some people combine their wearable gear, using a dedicated fitness tracker, like a top-tier running watch, for specialized activities while wearing a smart ring for continuous, everyday wear. Although mixing and matching wearables is an option, it may not be feasible for everyone, particularly those on a budget or those who prefer simplicity.

There's a big debate about whether smart rings or smartwatches are more accurate. Some data suggests that a smart ring's placement on your finger might yield more precise readings for heart rate and temperature, but this accuracy depends on several factors, including the quality of the sensors, the algorithms used for data interpretation, and, importantly, the fit of the device. For instance, one smart ring I'm currently reviewing fits like the others I've tested at first, but shifts around during the night, causing the sensors to lose contact with my skin. 

• Winner: Smartwatches

Smart ring vs smartwatch: Price, subscriptions and risk

There are many different smartwatches available, from the eye-wateringly expensive Apple Watch Ultra 2 ($799 / £799 / AU$1,399) to the incredibly affordable CMF Watch Pro from Nothing ($69 / £69 / AU$131). It's a similar story with fitness trackers, from the high-end running watch, the Garmin Epix Pro ($899.99 / £829.99 / AU$$1,529) to the super budget Huawei Band 7 (£49.99 / AU$159).

In comparison, the best smart rings aren't quite as pricey as the most high-end models, but are still a significant investment. For example, the Oura Gen 3 is $299 /£230 / AU$420 and the Ultrahuman Ring Air is $349 / £280 / about AU$537.

Some reviewers claim that smart rings are available on a budget, but in my experience, these affordable options compromise on quality. In contrast, budget fitness trackers might lack some of the same slick aesthetic appeal but often offer greater reliability. If cost is your primary concern, choose one of the best budget fitness trackers. Things are changing fast, but right now it’s hard to make a good smart ring on a budget, which has led to a surge in the market of low-quality, cheap smart rings.

What's more, there's been a significant buzz around smart rings. I’ve met people who were initially enthusiastic about owning a smart ring, only to find it uncomfortable, excessively scratched, or simply annoying to use. If you have a more generous budget and enjoy experimenting with the latest gadgets, these issues might not deter you. However, for those who are more cautious, it might not be the ideal time to invest in a smart ring.

It's worth noting that certain leading smart rings, like the Oura, come with subscription plans. While some users might find these services and their benefits appealing – such as upgrades and integration with third-party apps – it's essential to evaluate whether the ongoing expenses after the initial purchase are in your budget. 

Finally, some smart rings seem rushed to market. Features aren't ironed out, design flaws are evident, and the apps don’t read or work as well as they should. In comparison, more established devices, like smartwatches, tend to offer a more polished experience, benefiting from years of user feedback and iteration.

• Winner: smartwatches

Smart ring vs smartwatch: which is the best? 

There’s no definitive answer as to whether smart rings or smartwatches are better. Each type of wearable caters to different preferences and needs, with distinct advantages and disadvantages.

A smart ring could be an excellent choice for those with a larger budget who are keen on trying the latest technology and don’t require detailed fitness tracking. Smart rings are also particularly effective for monitoring overall wellness and sleep; many of the best ones are very light and comfortable. However, as a category, smart rings are still in their infancy, and will improve with time. 

If you value having apps at your fingertips, require detailed fitness metrics, or want a proven, reliable device, a smartwatch is the way to go. Alternatively, if apps are not a priority and cost is a concern, consider opting for one of the top fitness trackers. 

While they may not have the aesthetic appeal of the newest smartwatches or the novelty of smart rings, they're great at tracking fitness metrics accurately without any fuss.

You might also like...

• A key Apple Watch health feature just got a landmark stamp of approval
• Amazfit's new low-cost wearable packs in a big display and 26 days of battery life
• The Amazfit Helio Ring has a release date and price, and it's launching ahead of the Samsung Galaxy Ring

Okay, you’ll need to manage your expectations if you think this device is a full-on flying suit, but when I put on the Dnsys (pronounced like Genesis) X1, I imagine I felt the same buzz that Tony Stark must have felt when he got his Mark I Iron Man armor fully functional.

When Dnsys told me it was sending me its exoskeleton, I immediately thought this was going to solve not only my exercise problems but also help me overcome the limitations of a knee injury that’s plagued me for 10 years. It was therefore with great excitement that I received the package and proceeded to unpack it. 

It's a wearable unlike anything I've tried before: it's not the same as the best smartwatches or best running watches, or other training aids. It belongs in the same category as the Humane AI Pin, and jetpacks, as "silly futuristic tech we can't believe is already here".

Dnsys X1 exoskeleton: At a glance

• What is it? An exoskeleton designed to remove or add up to 38 kgs of resistance to your steps.
• Who is it for? High-tech hikers, people in rehab, those interested in unconventional resistance training.
• How much does it cost? Once the Kickstarter is over, it will retail at $1,198 (around £950 in the UK / AU$1,800 in Australia)

Build and design

The futuristic smart power exoskeleton immediately looked the part. It all came fully constructed with a battery installed, so I could start wearing it right away. The combination of metal and fabric support provided the necessary rigidity and flexibility to make it comfortable to wear, while not gripping on too tightly. 

I proceeded to put the exoskeleton on, with the slight trepidation that it might take over and leave me unable to control my movements. In reality, it’s not that strong and will largely work by aiding your movements, rather than generating them for you.

The belt is attached using strong velcro patches that keep it firmly around the waist. The two leg plates clip around the legs with elasticated chords. These fit comfortably and were incredibly easy to install. For such a complex piece of kit, I was pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to put it on.

One downside was the positioning of the power button at the rear, which seemed like a very strange decision to me. I could access it without too much trouble, but not being able to see it made it feel a little unnatural. Putting this on the front, or even on the side, would have made more sense to me. 

Operating the exoskeleton

With the belt and plates firmly located, I set about turning on the Assist mode. The instructions are really straightforward and ideal for an English-speaking audience. That being said, I found operating the device a bit clunky and unpredictable. Entering assist mode required a double click of the power button, but it would only seem to be successful if I stood absolutely still.

Much of this may have been user error, but a slightly simpler button layout and setup would have been better, in my opinion. Moving the power button to the side and having separate buttons for entering assist mode and workout mode would have been simpler for me. These two modes are highlighted with different colored LEDs, but you’ve got to remember which light refers to which mode. After a while, I got used to it, but for a beginner, it felt like hard work.

Assist mode

Once I finally entered Assist mode, which is said to reduce the load on your legs by up to 38 kilograms, I started running. First around the house and then outside. I tried moving in straight lines, round corners, and even up the stairs. I looked pretty silly, but that’s just something you have to get over if you want to enjoy the benefits of something like this. Everyone stared, which I suppose is how Robocop felt when enforcing the law.

As and when these types of assistance devices become more prevalent, there will be a lot less staring, I expect. Understandably, people are just interested and intrigued. They have questions, and you’re the one wearing the device, so it’s your job to answer them. One day the staring will fade, and users of exoskeletons will, no doubt, feel a lot more free. If exoskeleton manufacturers can find a way to hide these more easily underneath clothing, then that could be a good step forward.

Once I got going, I found the Assist mode to be incredibly helpful. I could feel it pulling my legs up as I took each step, and it noticeably felt easier to run around. I still had to put in a fair amount of effort, but it certainly helped provide that extra 15% that you might need to get up a hill, for example. Great for hiking.

Think of it like one of the best electric bikes, with a motor that kicks in when you pedal. It doesn’t do all the work for you, but it certainly helps when you’ve got a hill to get up that’s slightly beyond you physically. 

The unit itself is fairly noisy, with a robotic sound accompanying every rotation of the exoskeleton. I did enjoy walking around the house chasing my son like I was a robot out of control, and the noise coming from the machine helped sell the experience for both of us.

Resistance mode

As well as Assist mode, the X1 provides Resistance mode, which is a workout alternative that adds resistance rather than taking it away. To have both modes is incredibly helpful, as it provides an extra level of functionality that will appeal to a wider audience. Perhaps those who are in physical rehabilitation, or just want to build up their leg muscles in futuristic fashion rather than heading to the gym, will benefit here, but it's not the main attraction. 

There’s no control over the amount of resistance, but maybe that’ll come in X2. The resistance performs well, and at no point did I think I was going to break it.

When will everyone be wearing these?

Not very soon, I imagine. Even though the Dnsys Kickstarter campaign has been overwhelmingly positive, raising almost $579,000 at time of writing, the premium price of the exoskeleton will make people think twice before buying. 

As with any new technology, you’ll certainly get early adopters, and that will help get the industry moving. Dnsys is doing a great thing, and I hope they succeed in bringing more exoskeleton products to the market. 

I'll keep using the X1, hoping that in the long term, it helps me limit the strain on my knee, and therefore extend the length of my runs. I imagine X2 will have rocket boosters and be able to fire projectiles: at that point, the neighbors will really have something to stare at.

You might also like:

• Walking to lose weight: Two gadgets to help increase your step count in 2023
• I wanted a smart way to lose weight and this app made it happen
• The best Apple Watch 2024: Top smartwatches to use with iOS

For those who haven’t seen it, the show starts with 100 contestants of all different shapes, sizes and genders before periodically whittling this number down to one “ultimate physique” through a series of tasks, or "quests".  

It’s the uniqueness of these quests that, in my eyes, makes Physical: 100 one of the best Netflix shows. Season one included a series of tests inspired by Greek myth, including the Sisyphean task of repeatedly rolling a boulder up a hill until you drop, and the first task was deceptively simple: seeing how long each contestant can hang on a bar over a tank of water until they drop. However, the recently released second season kicks off with a more straightforward mission: running. 

Contestants were met with a room containing 100 curved treadmills. These machines sap more of your energy than a standard treadmill because the user is responsible for powering the belt – check out our curved treadmills vs motorized treadmills comparison for all the differences. The athletes’ challenge was to run as far as they could in three timed intervals. 

And, as a fitness fan watching 100 people suffer from the comfort of my couch, I immediately knew I wanted to give the test a go for myself. 

What happened when I tried Netflix’s Physical: 100 endurance test

I like doing difficult things. I lift weights most days, run twice a week and never say no to sports in any form. But there was a point during the second interval of this Physical: 100 test where I questioned why I was so keen to try it.

You’re running for 22 minutes in total so I figured, with a couple of three-minute breaks along the way, I should make it to five kilometers fairly easily. 

I was wrong. The first 10 minutes went surprisingly well, and I benefited from a slight downhill to ease me into my “quest”, as Physical: 100 refers to it. By the end of the first set I was breathing hard but feeling good, having covered 2.3km. This would have been enough to make the top 50 in Physical: 100. The top performer on the show recorded a distance of 2,416m, and the elimination cut-off was 1,841m. 

Having used curve runners in the past, I should say that I find them significantly slower and more taxing than simply running outside – but it was still fun to have scores to compete against.

Following my first interval I stopped to take the prescribed three-minute breather. But after what felt like 20 seconds, my vibrating watch told me it was time to get moving again. I did as I was told, only to find that someone had surreptitiously swapped my legs for lead columns while I had been “recovering”. 

Legendary endurance coach Chris Hinshaw once described the 5,000m as a “true test of overall athletic fitness”, requiring both physical and mental capacity. I was definitely fighting a battle on both fronts by this point, with my body in constant discomfort and my mind trying to distract me from this pain by counting steps.

I finished the second interval and leant aggressively against a nearby railing, having accumulated 3,800 meters according to my Apple Watch. This would have been on the edge of being disqualified, with the tenth-placed Physical:100 contestant recording 3,803m. The winner was flying ahead on 4,160m, while the highest-placed female contestant (handball player Park Ha-Yan) finished 36th with 3,375m.

Once more, the three minutes of rest went by in the blink of an eye, but this time I knew what to expect and adjusted accordingly. As a result, I was able to pick up my speed from the previous round, averaging 4’04”/km (with a sprint finish) rather than 4’41”/km. As the final second ticked over, I reached 5.02km and promptly collapsed onto a park bench.

“Never again,” I muttered to myself, knowing full well I’d be returning to this test at a later date to try and better my score, as well as those of the Physical: 100 contestants.

My distance would have seen me finish in 10th place, with the winner (former firefighter Hong Beom-seok) reaching a lofty 5,472m. Roll on season three.

You might also like...

• Why Physical: 100 is the most intense – and unexpectedly cozy – fitness show I've ever watched
• The best Apple Watch 2024: Top smartwatches to use with iOS
• My Apple Watch's ear-splitting alarm went off in the gym – don't make the same mistake I did

Not only can Therabody's massage guns take the tension out of your muscle pains after a workout, but each product in its range of equipment has something different to offer. Depending on how invested in fitness you are, there are models like the portable Theragun mini (2nd Gen), with all the basics for beginners, to more advanced models like the Theragun Prime. 

You should note that BestBuy's deals are available for a limited time only, so it's best to secure some of its best massage gun deals sooner rather than later. Especially if you have a big run, like a marathon, lined up for the summer months. 

Check out the deals in full below. Not in the US? Scroll down for the best Theragun deals near you.

Get the Best Buy Therabody deals here:

These are the questions that keep me up at night. As TechRadar’s Fitness and Wearables Editor, it’s my job to figure out how to reliably test wearables in order to determine how accurate they are. My two gold standards are the Garmin Epix Pro (one of the best Garmin watches) and the Apple Watch Ultra 2 (which we’ve ranked the best smartwatch, period); but I’ve never before pitted them against each other, nor have I had a more reliable third party to test them against. So, I decided to do just that – running the TCS London Marathon.

Every London Marathon runner is given a bib that comes with a built-in radio frequency identification chip, or RFID, which gives each runner an official time. Thereafter, that time is considered as a qualifying time for other races, such as the exclusive Boston Marathon, or in some cases, even world records.

As such, that chip has to be accurate, verifiably so, in order to ensure runners have an accurate measurement of their race time. And so that chip is the perfect reliable metric against which to measure two of the best smartwatches money can buy, while also evaluating how the popular run-tracking app Strava treats the information from my Garmin watch. 

Of course, at the time I signed up I’d totally disregarded the 16 grueling weeks – well, 13 actually, with one week ill, and a further two significantly more chilled-out recovery and tapering weeks – of training that would be required to get me in shape. However, running the race was a singular experience; there’s nothing quite like the wall of noise from the crowd that buffets you as you run over the iconic Tower Bridge. It made all the pain worthwhile. I finished the race with a chip time of 4:00:54 – respectable, but slightly shy of my sub-four-hour goal. 

So, what do Garmin, Strava and Apple have to say about one of the most famous foot races of all time? I’ve taken a look at the GPS files and information provided by all three services, in order to show you the difference between them. I tried to end the workout on both wearables at the point I crossed the finish line, and successfully did so, so there should only be a few seconds’ difference from a time perspective.

 Garmin Epix Pro: statistics 

• Recording time: 4:01:04
• Distance: 42.81km
• Average pace: 5:38/km
• Average heart rate: 166 BPM
• Total calories burned: 3,005.

The Garmin Epix Pro is my everyday running watch of choice. I welcome Garmin’s complex interface, in-depth running statistics, multitude of graphs plus recovery metrics, such as its Training Readiness Score. Its super-long battery life not only enables the collection of a decent amount of sleep and recovery data, but it also allows me to go on multiple long runs with the battery-sucking GPS mode active, without having to worry non-stop about having to recharge the watch. 

My Garmin recorded my total distance as 42.81km. Although the race course was just over 42.2km (or 26.2 miles) in length, Garmin shows the distance I actually travelled, including weaving in and out of other runners and taking wide corners. While this might not sound like it would make up much extra distance, it adds up over four hours. 

The Epix Pro recorded my average pace at 5 minutes, 38 seconds per kilometer, or 5:38/km. As well as all the other stats recorded, my average heart rate was 166 BPM during the race, measured from my left wrist, and total calories burned was 3,005 – the equivalent to around two large Domino’s original cheese & tomato pizzas, give or take a slice. 

Apple Watch Ultra 2: statistics 

• Recording time: 4:01:07
• Distance: 42.38km
• Average pace: 5:41/km
• Average heart rate: 168 BPM
• Total calories burned: 2,888 

This is where things get interesting. Garmin and Apple use different GPS files, different heart rate sensors and different algorithms to process information, and as such also end up with slightly different results over the same race. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 uses what Apple calls a precision dual-frequency GPS system, combining L1 and L5 satellite bands to more accurately determine your position when you run through tall buildings – London’s more densely packed areas, for example. 

Garmin also uses a multiband GPS technology it calls SatIQ – Satellite Intelligence – that determines the optimal GPS mode based on your environment. If you’re close to tall buildings or in a dense forest, for example, it will use multiband GPS. However, when a low-power GPS mode can achieve the same accuracy – in more open areas, for example, it will auto-switch to single band. 

The end result is a difference of around 400 meters, or 0.4km – which doesn’t appear to be much on the face of it, but for elite athletes it could be the difference between running a marathon and disqualification. 

One thing I noticed is that even though the Apple Watch Ultra is able to see where I am with pinpoint accuracy, when I dive into my splits (the time I spent over each kilometer of the race), Garmin gives me the numbers down to the nearest 10 milliseconds. Apple, in its customer-friendly approach, provides the data only to the second. Maybe this is where my extra 0.4km was registered. The Apple Watch also underestimated my heart rate by 117 calories (less than half a slice of pizza) compared to the Garmin watch. 

Honestly, the difference is minor, especially over four hours of effort. Discovering which of the two is more accurate is difficult; but for the average person running 10km on a Saturday, the variances between the two watches are small enough to chalk them up to algorithmic differences. 

Strava: statistics

• Recording time: 4:01:04
• Distance: 42.80km
• Average pace: 5:36/km
• Heart rate: 166 BPM
• Total calories burned: 3,005

Strava uses the information from the Garmin Epix Pro – including my Garmin’s raw GPS information – to arrive at its measurements, which is the reason the health stats such as heart rate and calories are so similar. However, Strava processes GPS data with its own algorithm, so there are slight differences. 

Strava tends to slightly underestimate Garmin’s data: in a community post, it’s said the reason this happens is that Garmin (both the device and Garmin Connect) rounds up distances, whereas Strava rounds down. It’s only 0.01km slower, but considering both use the same GPS file, you may see differences on your device and on Strava when looking at recorded workouts.

There are a few other changes: distances are always stored in meters on devices and then shown on Strava in the athlete's preferred units. The first number Strava gives you on its summary is Moving Time, not total time, so it discounts any quick stops. 

My Moving Time was actually slightly under four hours; to discover the full time, I had to dive into the statistics under the “Analysis” section. Garmin, as a serious tool for serious people, doesn’t bother with protecting my fragile ego with a faster time, and simply provides the total time recorded on the watch. 

Conclusion: Are the differences significant enough to matter?

Both these watches are equipped to handle serious races and distances, representing the cream of Garmin and Apple’s respective crops. They have long battery lives, tough casings, top-of-the-range sensor arrays and GPS offerings, and come in at similar premium price points. Since I’m not an elite runner, an annual marathon is the only way I can test both the watches limits – and my own. 

For running, I don’t believe the differences between the two models will prove statistically significant for anyone other than elite runners. Regular amateur runners, even those running marathons or ultra-marathons, use watches to provide accurate locations and good information for training – and in this regard, both the Apple and Garmin watches are more than accurate enough to provide the information such runners will need. 

And Strava? Well, if you’ve ever wondered why there are differences between your watch’s measurements and the information on your Strava account, now you know. 

You might also like...

• A key Apple Watch health feature just got a landmark stamp of approval
• Amazfit's new low-cost wearable packs in a big display and 26 days of battery life
• The Amazfit Helio Ring has a release date and price, and it's launching ahead of the Samsung Galaxy Ring

As reported by MyHealthyApple (via MacRumors), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has qualified the Apple Watch's atrial fibrillation (or AFib) history feature as an MDDT – or a Medical Device Development Tool.

That's a lot of acronyms to keep track of, but essentially it means the AFib readings on an Apple Watch 4 or later are able to be used to verify other medical devices in clinical trials. It's a major endorsement of the accuracy on board Apple's wearables.

The FDA notes this is the first digital health technology to be approved for MDDT use. Previously, the FDA has already given the thumbs up to AFib history on the Apple Watch, which means Apple is able to advertise the wearables as having this feature – though it's not at the level where it can replace a proper medical assessment.

Regular upgrades

Monitoring atrial fibrillation – irregular heart rhythms, essentially – is a feature intended for those who have already been diagnosed with the condition and are aged 22 or older, giving them a non-invasive way of checking the frequency of AFib signs.

Year on year, the Apple Watch has consistently added new health and fitness features, whether that's extra hardware sensors or additions to the software features (keep an eye out for watchOS 11 in June). Having the weight of FDA support behind it certainly helps in marketing the wearable as a reliable and trustworthy tracker.

There have been bumps along the way though: Apple is in an ongoing dispute over blood oxygen tracking patents, which briefly led to the Apple Watch 9 and the Apple Watch Ultra 2 being pulled from sale in the United States.

How that's going to affect the Apple Watch 10 remains to be seen. The device should be showing up around September time, and we've heard rumors about display and battery life upgrades, as well as some pretty significant design changes.

You might also like

• Please don't make this Apple Watch mistake
• These are the best Apple Watches you can buy
• The Apple Watch Ultra 3 rumors have started

This might seem like an unlikely situation, but it’s exactly what happened to me during a recent gym session. The culprit? My Apple Watch Ultra 2.  

Don’t get me wrong, I love almost everything about this watch. It’s the best Apple Watch on the market from a technical standpoint, with an improved 36-hour battery life and Apple’s brightest display to date, making for easy mid-run reading. It's currently top of our best smartwatch list, as we've labeled it "the best watch overall".

Thanks to its extra-durable titanium casing, the fact that it’s robust enough to emerge from hardcore kettlebell workouts unscathed is a major benefit for me as a fitness writer, and I use its wealth of exercise insights, such as heart rate zones, on a daily basis.

Another handy feature is its Emergency SOS shortcut. Simply hold the side button until a series of slider options appear, then slide the SOS motif to the right to call the emergency services in your region. 

If you hold the side button down, it will also contact emergency crews after blasting a sharp warning sound—useful stuff if you’re in a spot of bother, but a lot less useful when you’re trying not to drop a loaded barbell. 

I’m a big CrossFit fan, and a major part of this training style is muscular endurance, particularly in your legs. To boost mine, I’ve committed to three weekly sets of 20 front squats—an exercise which sees a barbell sit across your shoulders, in front of your neck, and your arms bend back on themselves to support the bar with your fingers.  

The first 10 reps were fairly smooth sailing, then fatigue hit. My legs turned to jelly, my core ached from stabilizing 135lb, and it became increasingly hard to catch my breath with the barbell sitting against my windpipe. 

By the time I was approaching the 20-rep goal, my progress had slowed to something reminiscent of a trek through treacle. Then, on the penultimate squat, it happened; at the bottom of the rep, a loud warning sound came seemingly from out of nowhere, all the while I (very slowly) tried to stand up from my precarious position at the bottom of a squat. 

As I reached the top of the rep, I realized the startling noise was coming from my wrist. My left hand had pushed into the Apple Watch Ultra 2’s side button for long enough to trigger its emergency call warning sound—I quickly reracked the barbell and released my grip to avoid a potentially awkward chat with emergency services. 

Glancing around, I saw several startled gym-goers shooting perplexed looks in my direction. I gave a few somber nods of apology, then stuffed my stuff into a bag and headed home. 

Following this incident a few weeks ago, I’ve started rotating my watch 180° on my wrist whenever I come across an exercise that requires this front rack position. Not only is this more comfortable, but I haven’t heard a peep since. If you also fall into the (admittedly niche) venn diagram midsection of Apple Watch Ultra wearers and weightlifting aficionados, I suggest you do the same to avoid suffering a similarly embarrassing fate.

You can also disable the Emergency SOS feature in the Apple Watch app on your iPhone. 

You might also like...

• The best Apple Watches 2024
• The best fitness trackers 2024
• From Apple and Casio to recycling running shoes, how sustainable is fitness tech in 2024?

Inside is a 300 mAh battery with an average lifespan of up to 11 days before needing a charge. If you have Battery Saver Mode turned on, the device can last almost an entire month; up to 26 days. The screen is made out of 2.5D tempered glass to resist scratches and is covered in an anti-fingerprint coating. Other notable design aspects include a resistance rating of IP68 so it can survive being submerged underwater, and a speaker and microphone duo for Bluetooth calling.  

Software features

When it comes to software, the Bip 5 Unity has a wide array of tools. It comes pre-installed with over 120 sports modes from rock climbing to square dancing just to name a few. The wearable can even auto-detect six different forms of cardio exercises. What this means is when you begin jogging or working out on an elliptical machine, the hardware will record your progress without needing direct input from you. Auto-detect can be finicky. Amazfit states certain actions such as driving a car can trigger it.

On the back of the watch face is a sensor that keeps tabs on your heart rate, blood oxygen, and stress levels. If the device detects any abnormalities, it’ll display a Smart Health Alert telling you to quickly address the issue. The Bip 5 Unity could, for example, warn you that your blood oxygen levels are dropping low. Another notification will let you know if it detects high-stress levels and presents an on-screen button where you can begin a breathing exercise.

Other important software features include Amazon Alexa as your AI assistant and support for over 70 downloadable apps. According to NotebookCheck, you can install the smartwatch apps through the official Zepp app on your smartphone. Unlike the older Amazfit Bip 5, this new model lacks a built-in GPS. You’ll have to connect the wearable to your phone to receive GPS data. Additionally, the watch face doesn’t curve around your wrist like the previous generation. It’s completely flat. 

The Amazfit Bip 5 Unity is available in the United States for $69.99. You have your pick of either a gray, charcoal black, or pink wristband. It’s also available for purchase in the UK for £69.90 with a gray or charcoal wristband.

Be sure to check out TechRadar's roundup of the best smartwatches for 2024 if you want other recommendations.

You might also like

• Apple Watch Ultra 3 rumors suggest it could be a seriously underwhelming upgrade
• The Amazfit Helio Ring has a release date and price, and it's launching ahead of the Samsung Galaxy Ring
• Samsung says its Galaxy AI tech is expanding to wearable devices soon

As spotted by Droid Life, Fitbit has sent emails to owners of its smartwatches and fitness trackers stating that Fitbit Pay will be fully replaced by Google Wallet on July 29. Google's contactless payments app has been available on the Versa, Sense and Charge for a while, but this move will make the switch mandatory.

The change has been framed as a positive one by Fitbit and Google, with the former's email stating that moving to Google Wallet “will increase the number of banks and cards that are available for contactless payments on your Fitbit device.” 

Still, while few people will actively miss Fitbit Pay, the switch means you have to change your contactless payment method over the next few months (more on that below). In the meantime, you're still able to use cards that are currently stored in your Fitbit Pay account, but you won't be able to add any new cards to it.

The news follows a recent update to the Sleep page in Fitbit's app, which didn't go down well with fans as many labelled it a "downgrade". Still, on the plus side, Google has also shown a willingness to bring AI-powered health-tracking features to Fitbit, including a new chatbot that will (apparently) hit Android "later this year". 

Hopefully, we'll hear more about that, and other new Fitbit features, at Google IO 2024, which kicks off on May 14.  

How to switch to Google Wallet

If you fancy switching from Fitbit Pay to Google Wallet in advance to avoid a last-minute panic, the process is fairly straightforward according to Google's support page in the Fitbit help center.

In the Today tab of the Fitbit app, tap the icon for your device (above left), then tap the Wallet tile (above right). Now, hit Update to Google Wallet and sign into your Google account. From here, you just follow the on-screen instructions to add your card to Wallet.

Once you've set up Google Wallet, the Wallet tile in the Fitbit app will automatically switch to the Google Wallet tile for your contactless payments.

The change is an unsurprising end to a Fitbit feature that first landed back in 2017 during the brand's heyday. Google Wallet is itself a replacement for Google Pay, which is officially shutting down by the end of June. 

Hopefully, this streamlining of mobile payment experiences will make things a little less confusing, but then you never know which service Google will send to the Google Graveyard next.

You might also like

• Fitbit users hate the recent Sleep page update, but a change could be coming
• Your phone's blue light won't actually stop you sleeping, according to an expert – but your phone is still the problem
• Fitbit responds to furious fans with five much-needed app fixes

The largely reliable Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo has apparently told MacRumors that the Watch Ultra 3 will have "almost no" hardware upgrades from the current Apple Watch Ultra 2.

Unfortunately, the analyst didn't share any more details, but that speculation follows a recent theme that's seen the prospect of a microLED screen boost look increasingly unlikely for Apple's most powerful smartwatch.

Of course, we don't know what software upgrades Apple could be planning for watchOS 11. Or if Apple could yet sneak in a hardware tweak, like a new smaller alternative to the current model's rather beefy 49mm case. 

It's also possible that the Watch Ultra 3 could come with an S10 chip (most likely, a rebranded version of the S9), as would qualify as a very minor hardware change. But overall, it sounds like Apple's next flagship smartwatch will be a somewhat underwhelming upgrade – particularly if Samsung does, as it's been hinting at lately, launch a Galaxy Watch Ultra at its next Galaxy Unpacked event, which is expected to be on July 10. 

Have we hit peak Ultra?

Not long ago, it looked more likely that we wouldn't see an Apple Watch Ultra 3 at all this year, with analyst Ming-Chi Kuo stating in October 2023 that the odds on it making an appearance in 2024 were "decreasing".

This was apparently due to delays for new features like a micro-LED display and "innovative health management features". Well, it now sounds likely that those bigger upgrades won't arrive this year, but that Apple is planning to launch a mildly updated Ultra model anyway.

That isn't exactly a disaster if you're looking for a powerful, tough smartwatch that can handle most outdoor adventures – our Apple Watch Ultra 2 review called it "the best Apple Watch ever" with "the smartwatch world's best screen".

But considering that the Ultra 2 was itself only a minor upgrade, it'd be slightly disappointing to see Apple repeat the trick again this year. It does appear, as TechRadar's Fitness & Wearables Editor Matt Evans recently argued, that we are reaching peak smartwatch, when it comes to hardware, with the best smart rings now the more exciting wearables.

Still, that hasn't stopped Samsung from stating that it's looking to launch "new premium models" in the smartwatch category in the second half of this year, with the Galaxy Watch 7 even tipped to get blood sugar monitoring. 

Given that Apple recently had to start shipping the Watch Series 9 in the US without its banned blood oxygen sensor due to a patent dispute, the company's wearables could be in for their toughest battle so far this year. 

You might also like

• The Galaxy Watch Ultra is spotted again as Samsung hints at 'premium' smartwatches
• Waiting for the Apple Watch Ultra 3? A microLED screen boost looks increasingly unlikely
• The best smartwatch 2024: Top wearables for notifications, fitness tracking & more