Garmin has just launched the new Forerunner 70, which brings a massive slate of new features to the successor of the Forerunner 55. In fact, if you have an existing Forerunner 55 watch (Fun fact: It’s the most popular Forerunner watch ever sold), then the Forerunner 70 will feel like you’ve upgraded to a Fenix-series device. Nearly 5 years later, the Forerunner 70 takes advantage of not just major hardware improvements, but a vast new software platform as well.

What makes this interesting is that this is *by far* the most new features Garmin has ever packed into a lower priced device, and atop that, even included some new training features as well. The pricing here is big shift from what we’ve seen over the past few 12-18 months, and I suspect it’ll undercut a lot of their competitors.

Now, I’ll be dropping my full in-depth review here in a few days (just got one or two more test activities I want to get in), but I’ve got a pretty good feel for things across running, cycling, hike, strength, and more (such as swimming over on the Forerunner 170). So frankly, very little is likely going to change between now and then, short of it catching fire on my wrist. Nonetheless, let’s get into all the differences.

Lastly, this is a media loaner from Garmin. I’ve already ordered my own unit at regular price, for long-term usage purposes. As always, I don’t accept advertising from any company I review, and no company sees my reviews before you do. So, if you found this review useful, consider becoming a DCR Supporter, which gets you an ad-free site, plus the behind-the-scenes video series between both myself (and my wife) on everything that happens in the DCR Sports Tech Cave/universe.

What’s New:

Now, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that this is not Garmin’s first Forerunner 70 watch. In fact, the first one came 15 years ago, all the way back in 2011. You can read my review about it here. Obviously though, things have changed a lot. That one had a coin-cell battery in it, and lacked GPS and most other features. It was basically designed to work with an ANT+ footpod. So, I’ll save you 12 reams of digital paper trying to compare that.

Instead, we’re going to compare it against it’s actual predecessor – the Forerunner 55 (the Forerunner 60 was from 2010, and basically the same watch as the Forerunner 70 except with a new band).

With that, all the differences compared to the Garmin Forerunner 55:

– Switched from 1” MIP display to 1.2” AMOLED Display
– Switched to a 43mm case size (was previously 42mm)
– Added Touchscreen (previously was buttons only)
– Upgraded from Garmin ELEVATE V3 HR sensor to ELEVATE V4 HR sensor (but V5 is latest)
– Completely revamped/changed user interface
– Added Watch Focus Modes (e.g. sleep, theater, activity, etc…)
– Added HRV Status/tracking support (at night)
– Added Smart Wake Alarm
– Added Sleep Coach feature, including sleep recommendation factors
– Added Nap detection support (new to Garmin, finally!)
– Added Morning Report feature
– Added Evening Report Feature
– Added Daily Summary report feature
– Added Daily Health Snapshot Feature
– Added Health Status tracking
– Added Lifestyle Logging (journaling, on-device & Garmin Connect)
– Added the ability to switch between small fonts and larger fonts for text
– Added quick-access Flashlight feature (using screen, not dedicated LED flashlight)
– Added photos in text messages (Android only)– Added ‘Shortcuts’ feature (configuring buttons for quick access to features)
– Added Alternate/Secondary Time Zone Widget/Option
– Added the ability to create Widget/Glance Folders
– Added Battery Widget (shows what’s driving battery usage)
– Added Countdowns
– Added Calculator Widget
– Added Garmin Messenger integration
– Added Moon Phase Widget
– Added Pulse Ox Tracking
– Added Sleep Score
– Added Sports Score Widget
– Added Stocks Widget
– Added Sunrise & Sunset Widget
– Added Weight Tracking Widget
– Added Timers/Alarms/Stopwatch/etc Widget
– Added Connect IQ Store (on-device)
– Added Low Battery Alert (e.g. 1 day left)
– Added Color filter option (for color blindness accessibility)
– Added Hourly Alert/Chime
– Added Battery Saver Feature (and now battery life estimates)– Added ~60+ new sport profiles/apps (see list below)
– Added the ability to configure watch activity profiles and data fields from your phone
– Added Training Readiness (and all underlying metrics)
– Added Training Status (and all underlying metrics)
– Added Acute Load (including historical load trends/tunnel)
– Added VO2Max Trending
– Added Load Focus, Load Ratio
– Added Recovery Time (live widget/etc…)
– Added Running Dynamics support (Ground Contact Time, Vertical Oscillation, Vertical Ratio, Stride Length)
– Added Native Running Power (wrist-based, and native data fields)
– Added Running-power specific training zones
– Added Automatic Run/Walk/Stand detection within a workout
– Daily suggested workouts can now be seen into the future, configuration of long-workout days, more settings, etc…
– Daily suggested workouts can now be tied to future calendar race events, automatically creating workouts for that distance/course
– Added equipment tracking on-device (e.g. shoes, bikes, etc…)
– Added Primary Race Widget
– Added New Race Calendar & Race Details/Countdown Widgets
– Added Race Time prediction (within Race widget)
– Added Workout Benefit feature (tells you what the benefit of a given workout was)
– Added ability to create lap alerts on proximity (e.g. passing the same pace)
– Added Course/Route following
– Added ‘Up Ahead’ feature for distances to predefined markers like aide stations, climbs, etc…
– Added Aid Station/Rest Break Timer/Counter in Courses (e.g. Trail Runs)
– Added Time Cutoff Feature in Courses (e.g. Trail Runs)
– Added Garmin Share (to quickly share workouts/courses/etc…)
– Added ‘Workouts’ app/quick access menu
– Added Pack Weight Support (in Running/Hiking activities)
– Increased data fields per page from 4 to 8
– Increased number of custom data pages allowed
– Adds support for up to 4 CIQ data fields concurrently (versus 2 previously)
– Added muscle map feature in strength workouts
– Added Secure/Encrypted Bluetooth sensor pairing feature/option
– Added Cycling Lights, Cycling Radar, RD Pod, Tempe sensor support (ANT+ & Bluetooth Smart, see full list below)
– Increased GPS/GNSS types: Added Beidou & QZSS to multi-band list (but not dual frequency)
– Smartwatch battery life is 13 days (5-days always-on)
– GPS battery life per the chart below up to 23 hours
– Weight is 40g
– Waterproof rating is 5ATM/50-meters

Holy moly, that took a long time to put together/figure out (and yes, I literally manually go through every single item to come up with the above list – Garmin doesn’t provide any such list to me). Of course, the reality is there’s still tons more features buried in sub-menus and such, but I think the above covers most of it.

When it comes to the full list of sport modes, it’s sprawling, and essentially lines up with most of Garmin’s other watches made in 2025/2026. For the most part, the only differences to a higher-end Fenix series watch is that those watches also have both high-speed watersports (e.g. surfing) due to increased water resistance designs, and low-speed underwater sports (e.g. diving) due to other increased water resistance as well. In any case, here’s the full list:

Forerunner 70: Run, Track Run, Treadmill, Road Bike, Walk, Cardio, Strength, Pool Swim, Trail Run, Bike (Outdoor), Bike Indoor, Virtual Run, Indoor Track, Obstacle Racing, Ultra Run, MTB, eBike, eMTB, Cyclocross, Gravel Bike, Bike Commute, Bike Tour, Mobility, HIIT, Yoga, Pilates, Elliptical, Stair Stepper, Row Indoor, Walk Indoor, Boxing, Mixed Martial Arts, Jump Rope, Hike, Rucking, Mountaineering, Disc Golf, Horseback, Archery, Inline Skating, Ski, Snowboard, XC Classic Ski, XC Classic Skate, Snowshoe, Ice Skating, Snowmobile, SUP, Kayak, Row, Snorkel, Soccer/Football, American Football, Basketball, Baseball, Softball, Volleyball, Cricket, Lacrosse, Rugby, Field Hockey, Ice Hockey, Ultimate Disc, Tennis, Pickleball, Padel, Racquetball, Squash, Badminton, Table Tennis, Platform Tennis, ATV, Snowmobile, Overland, Motocross, Motorcycle, Horseback, Breathwork

In case you’re wondering how it differs from the also-announced Forerunner 170, that watch has Floor Climb (because it has an altimeter), Openwater Swimming, and Meditation (guided). It does not have multisport/triathlon modes.

Lastly, when it comes to supported sensor types, it supports the following:

Sensor Supported: External HR (ANT+/Bluetooth), Footpod (ANT+/Bluetooth), Lights (ANT+), Cycling Radar (ANT+/Bluetooth), RD Pod (ANT+), Speed/Cadence Sensor (ANT+/Bluetooth), Tempe (ANT+)

The Forerunner 170 adds in cycling power meter and cycling smart trainer support.

Finally, for battery life, here’s where things stand:

Smartwatch mode: Up to 13 days (5-days always-on display)
Battery Saver Smartwatch mode: Up to 28 days
GPS Only GNSS Mode: Up to 23 hours
All-Systems GNSS Mode: Up to 16 hours

Got all that? Good, let’s get into some of the bigger ticket items.

A Revamped Watch

In many ways, it’s hard to know where to start with the Forerunner 70, since there are so many new features, and it’s really an entirely different watch than the existing Forerunner 55. So instead, let’s just hit up some of the core aspects first that are most notable to existing Forerunner 55-era folks, and then my full in-depth review in the next couple of days will dive into everything more thoroughly. Also note, that I’ve got a separate post coming on the Forerunner 170 (seen above in red), though frankly, it’s virtually identical.

Now, before we go forward, I do want to note that *everything* you see in this and my review is on an account without Garmin Connect+. Meaning, there’s no extra subscription fee for anything you see here, both at the watch and app/platform level. It’s all included. Garmin Connect+ does offer a few features on the app, such as the nutrition tracking feature, but by and large, I don’t find much value in anything there.

With that, looking at the watch itself, it’s got the usual Forerunner 5-button layout, except now with an AMOLED display:

The display is the same as that found on the Vivoactive 6, which means it’s likely about 1,500 nits in brightness (Garmin doesn’t disclose these values for some odd reason), and so isn’t as bright as the Forerunner 570/970/Fenix 8 Pro, but is plenty bright (and brighter than past generation displays).

From the customizable watch face, you’ll scroll down into the widgets glances (and widgets), which is a huge upgrade from the Forerunner 55 of years past.

With the widgets, you’re going to find all the new widgets that have been released on the Forerunner 570/970 watches over the past year, such as the sports widget, calculator, Garmin Share, and many more. As you can see above, it’s got the new battery burn widget seen on the recent Fenix & Forerunner lineup as well.

Of course, for most people doing workouts, it’s the massive slate of new sports modes that you’ll be interested in. Those are listed up above, but one of the things you’ll notice is the same general sports UI as the Forerunner 570/970 and Fenix 8 Series.

This includes new features like the recently added equipment tracking, for which eventually I’ll add in my correct shoes. In the meantime, those Asics have some 17,000km on them…according to Garmin Connect.

And with that, comes the ability to configure a gazillion custom data pages, and up to 8 data fields per page. As well as a slate of new graphical data pages.

As well as the ability to do all your customization from your phone. This includes basic settings, but also more advanced settings like data fields and the things that take forever to do on the watch itself, you can do from either watch or phone.

Of course, the biggest non-sport-mode ticket addition to the Forerunner 70 series is undoubtedly the addition of Training Readiness. This looks at your current training history, as well as daily life data (sleep, stress, etc…), and gives you a number for how ready you are to train at any given moment.

This will change throughout the day (both up and down). Go out for a hard run? It’s going to drop. Sit on the couch and watch TV? It’s likely to go up. It’s one of the best executed pieces of Garmin software there’s been in the last few years. I’ll dive into more of it within my longer in-depth review.

But with that, comes Training Status. This instead looks at more of the coaching aspect, than the readiness aspect. It looks at your recent training load, factors like HRV status, and decides whether or not your current volume (and type of training).

This includes Acute Load, one of the key metrics to use for looking at training load trending over time.

It also includes complimentary access to the ‘Unproductive’ training status, for which Garmin is well known (it’s actually really hard to get yourself into that pickle these days, but fear not, I found a way). Again, more in my full written review.

Meanwhile, the unit includes the ability to load up a course/route, which the Forerunner 55 lacked:

However, honestly, more interesting than that is that Garmin included a bunch of waypoint-related features, for example, the Up Ahead function that you can show icons/details about upcoming points on your route:

And even more surprising is all the new Ultra-Trail running-focused Time Cut-off Checkpoints and Rest Timer features have been added. This allows you to configure a time time-off for certain points on the course, as well as configure how long you’ll linger eating Haribo in the aide stations (and it’ll count that down for you).

Though inversely, it was surprising to not see either the Timing Gates feature, or the Estimated Finish line feature (which will trim off the end of a race to the defined course finish line, if you forget to stop your watch).

There is no offline maps here of course, that requires a higher-end unit from Garmin, but for most people having the breadcrumb trail will do the trick, especially while road running.

Again, I’ll dive into more of the general running features in my full written review later this week.

New Quick Workout Creator:

Garmin has always reigned supreme when it came to ways you could do structured workouts. Garmin’s had manual interval creator (on-device), the ability to import workouts from Garmin Connect (yours or training plans), workouts from 3rd parties and coaches (e.g. TrainingPeaks, etc…), pace/heart rate/etc targets, dynamic Daily Suggested Workouts, and many more options.

However, one thing it lacked was the ability to just request an on-demand workout of a given duration (time) and pain level, and then boom, give you a few options and off you go. All on-device, without any AI-driven app or such behind the scenes. Now, it does.

Quick workouts is both simplistic, and frankly, awesome. You simply choose how hard you want to hurt (four different levels), then choose duration levels (30 mins, 45 mins, 60 mins). From there it’ll spit out 1-4 structured workouts instantly that you can choose from.

As one who often decides what type of workout I’m going to do as I walk out the door, this is perfect.

Here, let’s take a quick look at how it works. First, you choose Run, then choose Training, then Quick Workout:

From there, you’ll choose the level of suffering. Again, super simplistic (if perhaps a touch bit stylistically dated):

Next, you’ll choose the duration. This doesn’t change, no matter how advanced you are. After all, any coach can make even the most elite athlete in the world hurt at any of these given levels.

Instead, the workouts it’s creating for you will vary based on your ability, driven by your workouts. As with most things on the Garmin watch, the more data (runs) you give it, the better this gets. I find for most Garmin features, that you’ll reach that optimal level of data about 4 weeks in, though this totally works straight out of the box too.

In any case, if you select the easiest level, these are almost always basically just blocks at an easy intensity. Whereas once you start increasing intensity, they start getting more creative, and you get more options:

Again, these are taking into account your existing training and ability levels:

The ‘cool’ part is that, unlike Daily Suggested Workouts, which will refuse to give you really tough workouts if it thinks you’re likely to get injured, the Quick Workout Creator has zero effs to give. Like asking for “native-level-spicy” at a Chinese restaurant, it’s gonna deliver probably beyond what you want to accept.

In any case, once you’ve picked your suffering, it’ll load up just like any other Garmin structured workout. So you’ll get prompts and countdowns as you iterate through:

Meaning it’ll tell you the target pace and time left for each section automatically, chirping as it goes along. Then, at the end it’ll give you an execution score:

Ya know what I like best about this? It just works.

No faffing about with some app on your phone driven by wonky AI that can’t put together a coherent workout. Instead, this is driven by the coaching principles that we’ve seen the rest of the Garmin platform leverage on workouts for years. Generally speaking, most people agree that the running workouts it generates once it has enough data are pretty solid (albeit usually a bit conservative to avoid injury).

The point is, what I appreciate about this is that I can just decide how much I want to suffer as I walk out the door, without pulling out my phone, and then get right to business. Simple and effective.

Accuracy (Heart Rate & GPS):

I’ll dive into accuracy within my full in-depth review, though I did want to briefly touch on it here, if for no other reason to say ‘no issues’. Both the heart rate sensor and GPS chipset are tried in true in numerous other watches over the last few years.

The heart rate sensor is a Garmin Elevate Gen4 optical HR sensor, which isn’t their latest generation (that’s Gen 5), but is generally good in the vast majority of situations. The Gen5 typically has an advantage in certain cases (like intervals on a cool but not super cold fall day), though the Gen4 beats almost all of Garmin’s competitors anyway.

First, a quick look at an interval workout from yesterday (the one I selected above in the Quick Workout generator, in fact). Here are both the Forerunner 70 & Forerunner 170, on separate wrists, compared to a chest strap and other devices.

You can see some slight variations here and there, interestingly more on the FR70 than the FR170, though that’s likely just simply luck of the wrist than anything.

Meanwhile, here’s a trail run I did. Well, it started off as a trail run for the first 45 minutes, then I did some intervals for the last 45 minutes. You’ll see where I held up my camera to get a quick snippet of b-roll (while starting the interval going downhill), which caused the cadence lock you see. That’s a good example of an edge-case scenario that the Gen5 optical HR sensor can typically handle.

Still, there are other times where the FR70/170 varies a bit on the recovery, especially (which is semi-common for optical HR sensors that tend to delay catching up after dropping down).

Meanwhile, here’s a run my wife did yesterday, and you can see it’s virtually identical to the Garmin HRM-FIT chest strap she was wearing:

As for GPS, the Forerunner 70/170 doesn’t have a multi-band GPS/GNSS, but as I’ve said countless times, it’s not the size of your GPS, but how you use it. Garmin specifically has industry leading non-multi band GPS antenna designs (and chipsets/firmware) the last few years, and beats almost every other multi-band/dual-frequency unit on the market. Virtually every reviewer out there finds the same.

So, with that in mind, here’s some trail running, without any issues at all:

Likewise, here’s a downtown area with plenty of tall buildings, and even going under a swimming pool. No, really, I went under it (yes, that’s a man in the water looking down at me):

As you can see, it’s virtually identical to the Fenix 8 Pro with full multi-band enabled in that scenario:

And likewise for this gravel bike ride, no issues here, including next to cliffs, and fast single-track trails that are frankly mountain-bike trails. Here’s a zoomed-in snippet of one section:

Lastly, the Forerunner 170 gained the ability to track openwater swims (both FR70/170 can do pool swim tracking). You can see that the tracking was pretty good. The multi-band Fenix 8 Pro had a very slight edge on it compared to the reference track on a swim buoy, but otherwise pretty darn close.

Again, I’ll toss some more data sets into my full in-depth reviews for both units, though they’re literally all identical to the above. Everything I’m seeing is exactly as I expect, his is perfectly accurate on GPS, and then pretty good on heart rate minus some slight bobbles here and there (as expected for the Gen4 heart rate sensors).

(Note: All of the charts in these accuracy portions were created using the DCR Analyzer tool. It allows you to compare power meters/trainers, heart rate, cadence, speed/pace, running power, GPS tracks, and plenty more. You can use it as well for your own gadget comparisons, more details here.)

Wrap-Up:

I’m legit surprised that Garmin packed as much as they did into this watch for $249. This is an incredibly competitive budget watch, even if the price of ‘budget’ has slowly shifted (by most brands) from $199 to $249. This watch is price-wise unlike anything else Garmin has released the last few years, in any of their categories. It’s the first time in a long time that Garmin seems determined to not just win on pure features (or depth), but also compete against the COROS/Suunto/Polar’s of the world with price.

As I said in my video, I see this watch as the ‘easy-button’ pick for almost all road runners, or general fitness-focused people wanting a Garmin watch without the Garmin price tag. It’s got all the health/lifestyle features of a higher-end Garmin watch, without compromising on the core running (or sports) features. Sure, it doesn’t have offline maps like an Amazfit unit would at this price, nor does it have music or contactless payments. But your phone does both of the last two, and for most road runners, maps aren’t a critical thing. Whereas if you shift over to trail running, then having offline maps (and features like ClimbPro) are much more valuable.

I have very few complaints about this watch, perhaps because almost all the features are already there in other watches and reasonably well-tuned. About the only ‘complaint’ I’d say is that the decision to exclude timing gates & race finish trimming is a bit quirky (given their inclusions of some ultra trail features), but honestly, that’s a pretty minor nit that most people won’t even notice (especially if you never load a route during a race).

It’ll be interesting to see in a few years if this unit turns out to be as popular as the existing Forerunner 55 was. With that – thanks for reading!

In this episode, we chat about the potential for the Google Fitbit Air to change the health and fitness industry forever.

For those not subscribed to the FIT File (it’s free!) via your regular podcast app or on YouTube, here’s a quick post with the highlights from the most recent episode.

Thanks to Precision Fuel & Hydration, where you can get 15% off your first order.  Additionally, check out their free Fuel & Hydration Planner.

As a reminder, here’s where you can find the podcast:

• The FIT File on YouTube.

And then for the audio-only version, you can find it here:

• Apple Podcasts
• YouTube Music
• Spotify
• RSS Feed

Thanks for listening!

It didn’t take long for Whoop to respond to Google-Fitbit’s announcement of the Fitbit Air. By the next morning, the company had posted a seemingly hastily written post on Reddit announcing a slate of vaguely worded plans. Hours later, the CEO would post a vertical video to social media that roughly reiterated those plans. He’d also post a passive-aggressive post to X/Twitter. Then, by Sunday, the company had finally sent something a bit more formal to users, albeit with far fewer features noted than the other posts.

The Fitbit Air has unquestionably put Whoop quickly on the defensive. While there have been a number of screen-less wearables announced over the past year, including most notably the Amazfit Helio Band ($99) and Polar Loop ($199), neither has had the financial engine behind them like Google does. In the case of Amazfit, which made a super compelling budget option, manufacturing couldn’t keep up with demand (and still can’t), and the company had but a fraction of a fraction of the marketing share of Whoop. Meanwhile, for Polar, Whoop was clearly nervous about that one and decided to sue Polar for trade dress allegations (basically, saying Polar infringed on Whoop’s looks).

Still, the Fitbit Air hits different. Priced at $99, with stylish band options that Amazfit & Polar mostly lacked, and backed by a company with massive manufacturing and global marketing power, it’s a real threat to Whoop. But more critical than the hardware price, is that it doesn’t require a subscription (which starts at $200/year for Whoop and goes upwards to $359/year). Sure, Google’s offering is more aligned to Whoop’s when you include Google’s Premium subscription, but even that is only half the price of Whoop’s subscription, at $99 year (or $79/year for existing subscribers). Beyond that, Google is leading their messaging that this is more of an open platform, eager to pull in data from all your data sources (whereas Whoop has long been very closed, save for a few partners they export data to, usually with an API licensing fee).

All of which seemingly led to the below Reddit post.

The Reddit Post

By the morning following Fitbit’s announcment, Whoop had published the below post to Reddit, via their official/verified account. As I started reading through this for the first time, I couldn’t help but think it seemed written by someone who had just cheated on their partner, and was rambling on about all the ways they’d change. While it has some specific items in there, most of it is pretty thin on actual details/dates. It lacks any of the formality and concreteness you’d see in typical Whoop communications (or see a few days later in thinned-down promises). As a funny side note, it reminds me heavily of Strava’s hastily worded late-night Reddit post angry about Garmin, last fall.

In any case, I’ve posted it here in full:

WHOOP Updates (5/8): What’s new and what’s coming next

We’re starting a new rhythm this year. Every few months, we’ll share an update on what’s new, what’s coming soon, and where we’re investing next.

 

Here’s where we’re focused this spring:

 

1. Coaching that knows you
WHOOP is getting better at understanding more than just your physiology. This includes your goals, your routines, and the things happening in your life that affect how you perform and recover.

 

Memory brings your goals, habits, and life events into one place so coaching can reflect what actually matters to you. You can access Memory in your Profile.

 

Proactive check-ins reach out based on what’s in Memory, keeping you accountable to the goals and habits you’ve shared.

 

Journaling is also improving, with options to log by voice or text and suggestions that evolve based on what is working for your body.

 

The goal: coaching that’s specific to you.

 

2. Stronger training, better connected

We said last year that strength exercise progression was coming. It took longer than we expected. It is now shipping in the next few weeks.

 

This comes to life in Strength Trainer with trends and personal records. You will be able to see how your lifts progress over time and track PRs across movements. The goal is to give you a clearer view of how your training is evolving, not just what you did on a given day.

 

We are continuing to build better tools for how you train, and improving how WHOOP fits into the rest of your routine.

 

This includes deeper integrations with the apps you already use, so more of your activity flows into WHOOP automatically. That leads to a more complete picture of your day and better context for recommendations and guidance.

 

3. Even more accurate, every activity

We never stop pushing accuracy forward. We’re delivering another improvement to the heart rate algorithm this summer, with improvements across all activities and everyday wear.

 

Workout auto-detection and classification is also improving so more of your activity is picked up without manual input.

 

4. A deeper picture of your health

We are starting to connect your daily WHOOP data with your broader health context.

 

For members in the U.S., medical records integration with HealthEx will allow you to securely connect your records inside the app so recommendations and guidance are in context of your full medical picture.

 

Also, we’re introducing a new paid add-on service: on-demand video consultations with a clinician fluent in your sleep, activity, bloodwork, and medical records so you can have a health conversation that doesn’t start from scratch.

 

Some of what’s above, like Memory, proactive check-ins, and Journaling improvement are already in your hands. Other features roll out over the coming weeks, with additional details to share as we get closer to launch.

 

You’ll see updates in the WHOOP app and we’ll keep sharing them here as well.

As you can see, it just feels very rambling with lots of ideas, but few of them concrete. Which isn’t to say they are bad ideas. For example, they talk about heart rate accuracy improvements this summer. Whoop has done a really good job over the years in this area, and this is another step in that direction (though realistically, almost every month they’re making tiny gains in their heart rate algorithms).

Likewise, in areas like workout auto-detection, Whoop is already industry-leading, though certainly has room for improvement (as I saw just yesterday, ironically, where it classified an off-road ride as both a run and bike multi-sport event – usually it nails these). Still, these are things that I’m guessing Whoop is already doing every month, so this is kinda like writing down things that were already happening just to fill out the post.

Meanwhile, there are new areas like being able to log your Journal via just a simple voice entry. That’s legit useful for folks who journal every day and find it tedious via selecting checkboxes (especially for more rare items). The same goes for improvements on how their AI remembers key things (they call that ‘Memory’), though that seems like a direct response to Google’s premium Coach feature, which is really good at remembering things.

And then there are things that they previously promised last year and seemingly forgot, that are now being rushed to be completed in the coming weeks (“We said last year that strength exercise progression was coming. It took longer than we expected. It is now shipping in the next few weeks.”). This includes tracking lift PR’s and more. Again, there’s nothing wrong with this, and they could/probably will be legit useful features – but this all feels very rushed. I imagine a bunch of engineers at Whoop are having to work some late nights/weekends to get this done.

Finally, there are the medical records pieces. This is an area where multiple companies keep trying to instantiate the link between wearables and medical records. We’re not just talking things like ECG here, but much broader links to medical records, especially around bloodwork. I remember looking at some of this 15 year ago. That scene frankly hasn’t changed much since. And given concerns around data privacy of such records, especially linked to Big Tech companies, in the US over the last 1.5 years, I don’t expect we’ll be seeing consumers flock to these features.

CEO Video & Postings:

Next, just for historical purposes, we’ve got the CEO video that followed. This is essentially the same message as Reddit, though they did overlay a couple of examples of features that are basically already done. Oddly though, it’s unlisted on their official YouTube channel, only linked from a post on Reddit.

And then there’s this post on X/Twitter, showing the inside of the Whoop that supposedly says “DON’T BOTHER COPYING US…WE’RE STILL WINNING”:

I find this peculiar, because in most cases, they’re…umm…not winning. At least, assuming valuation or subscribers or users is what matters.

For example, Whoop is heavily rumored to be preparing for an IPO, which currently has the company valued in the $10 billion range (with a ‘B’ like bubble). Sure, that’s impressive, but just for context, Google is valued at ~$4.5 TRILLION (with a ’T’, like trampled).

And certainly, there’s far more Fitbit/Google users out there than Whoop users. Whoop sits at 2.5 million users globally, whereas Fitbit alone is well into the upper 30-million active user range (Fitbit recently revamped a page that had listed an exact number from a few years back).

Don’t get me wrong, Whoop is super popular, and they do a lot of things technically right. And some things are technically better than what Fitbit has with the Fitbit Air today. For example, Whoop’s automatic exercise recognition is leagues beyond what Fitbit has (which only automatically recognizes a couple of sports). Likewise, Whoop’s heart rate broadcasting feature makes Fitbit’s look silly and hyper-limited. Whoop’s journaling feature exists where Fitbit doesn’t really have anything like that (save some general daily notes, which aren’t the same). Finally, I think Whoop’s collection of band offerings, however pricey they are, vastly beats Fitbit’s current offerings.

But of course, the inverse is also true. Fitbit’s AI pieces in their updated app run circles around Whoop’s, and Fitbit’s concept of Cardio Load, as well as Readiness. And they are well beyond Whoop’s relatively basic concept of Strain & Recovery (as I’ve pointed out for years). Likewise, Fitbit’s massive list of partners for integrations will soon become a key engine in its story.

The point is, bravado has its place (especially in sports), but these actions together seem less bravado and more scared.

What Really Matters:

The thing is, as any Reddit comment, X/Twitter reply, or YouTube comment will tell you, there’s really only one thing that Whoop users are actually upset about: The price.

That’s fundamentally the issue here, and in many ways, it always has been. Nobody is really complaining meaningfully about features in Whoop. Sure, there’s some broken promises (especially in last year’s hardware debacle), and there’s some software features that haven’t materialized as fast as Whoop promised. But at the end of the day, it’s the price that’s going to drive people from Whoop to Fitbit (or other competitors).

When people look at something like the Whoop MG, with its pricing at $359/year, after 3 years, that’s over $1,000. Whereas a Fitbit Air is still $99, or at worst $400 with three years of Fitbit Premium. And while the Whoop MG does have some other aspects (like full manual ECG), other pieces such as the Blood Pressure haven’t really panned out. Even at a more basic level, you’d be looking at the cheapest Whoop offering being $600 for 3 years, versus the cheapest Fitbit option is $99 for those 3 years (just the hardware cost).

And while I totally get that there are key software differences in comparing Fitbit Air with Premium vs Not, I’ll save those for a more in-depth post. But the reality is, a huge chunk of the market today doesn’t subscribe to Fitbit/Google Premium and isn’t at all upset about it.

Either way, it’ll be interesting to see what Whoop’s next moves actually are. Sure, there was the rambling list of planned changes, but I don’t see any of those being enough to sway people. As always, instead, money talks.

With that – thanks for reading!

Fitbit has just announced the new Fitbit Air, priced at just $99, and it doesn’t require any sort of subscription. In this post, I’ll dive into everything you need to know about it from a hardware, software, and overall platform perspective. I’ve got a unit or two headed my way to start digging into things hands-on, but for now, this covers the key bits you need to know.

In the case of the software app, I’ve been using the beta version to understand it all a bit better with existing Fitbit hardware, as the app is now expanding further beyond Fitbit data to any data source that wants to connect to it. More on that down below.

With that, let’s dive into things.

The Key Hardware Specs:

Here’s the key hardware/etc specs of the unit, keeping in mind that at a functional level, it’s essentially taking a Fitbit Charge 6, and removing the display. Meaning that virtually every feature of the Fitbit Charge 6 exists here, just in a screenless form factor.

– $99USD, no subscription required (though there’s also an optional Premium subscription option)
– Two-part device: The main pod (“the pebble”), and then the band
– Pod is “polycarbonate and PBT plastics”
– Swappable Bands vary by type/material purchased
– Three core band types: Active, Elevated, Performance (see colors below)
– Battery life of 7 days
– Recharging time: 5 minutes quick charge is 1 day usage, or 90 minutes for a full charge
– 7 days of memory for detailed motion data (though oddly only 1 day offline of workout data)
– Tracks sleep, steps, and daily activity
– Has automatic workout/exercise detection
– Tracks training load (aka Cardio Load), includes Daily Readiness
– FDA-certified background Afib detection (but not manual ECG)
– Saves heart rate at 2-second intervals
– Optical heart rate monitor, plus a red and infrared sensor for SpO2 monitoring
– Skin temperature sensor
– Internal sensors include: 3-Axis accelerometer + gyroscope
– Includes vibration motor for smart wake alarms, regular alarms, and low battery alerts
– Small LED for battery status and pairing
– Does not contain nacho cheese dispenser
– Bluetooth 5.0
– Heart Rate Broadcasting to certain equipment/devices (same as Charge 6)
– No GPS inside, but will leverage GPS from your phone (e.g., Connected GPS)
– Water resistant to 50 meters
– Weight – 5.2g without band, 12g with band
– Both Apple iOS & Android supported (minimum Apple iOS 16.4, minimum Android 11.0)
– Starts shipping May 26th (available to purchase today, though)

In terms of the premium subscription option, it’s $9.99/month or $99/year if billed annualy. However, if you’re an existing Fitbit Premium subscriber, then you get to keep your $79/year annual pricing.

Below, you can see the pod within one of the bands, which is officially called “the pebble” (I presume in a nod to Pebble, which Fitbit acquired many years ago):

The pod itself is the same across all models, however, there are four different band colors at launch, which are grouped into three categories. The first is the Active bands:

Then the Performance bands:

Then the ‘Elevated bands:

The official names of these band colors are:

– Obsidian Band, Matte Black Stainless Steel Buckle
– Fog Band, Polished Silver Stainless Steel Buckle
– Lavender Band, Polished Silver Stainless Steel Buckle
– Berry Band, Polished Champagne Gold Stainless Steel Buckle

And then beyond that, there’s the Stephen Curry Special Edition band, too:

Not gonna lie, this one does look pretty nice:

When it comes to the bands, one key omission is that there is no bicep band (or any other band/wearable types). It doesn’t sound like that’s a forever thing, and Google hinted at more band options later in the year. Still, that seems like a silly oversight to make, given the massive popularity of such a band on Whoop (and Amazfit).

Nonetheless, the good news there is that Google pod design lends itself really well to cheap Amazon bands from no-name companies (the companies that just have a bunch of random characters in their names). So I’d be really surprised if we don’t see a plethora of $8-$12 options by mid-June or so.

The App Pieces:

Anytime you have a screenless wearable, arguably the app ends up being more important than the hardware. It’s a lesson we’ve seen Polar learn since launching their Polar Loop last fall. The hardware itself is largely fine, but the app has a fraction of the functionality of Whoop or Amazfit, and with a seemingly decade-old, clunky UI atop it.

In Fitbit’s case, it’s mostly the opposite. The company started to massively overhaul its Fitbit app last year, which launched in public beta shortly after the Pixel Watch 4. With today’s launch, that’s been renamed Google Health (which is kinda wonky, given the name of the just-announced hardware is Fitbit Air, not Google Air or Pixel Air). But in any case, to Google’s credit, I’d argue there’s no app that better leverages AI insights and the like within the fitness/health realm today.

The minor attempts by companies like Whoop, Oura, and others to leverage AI coaching and such are but a fraction of what Google/Fitbit has done in their app. It’s astonishingly deep, albeit sometimes like the talkative Uber driver at 4:45 AM to the airport that just won’t shut up.

So, let me just run through my app, because that’s kinda the best examples of what you’re going to see. This data is from the Fitbit Charge 6, though it’s literally the exact same data you’ll have with the Fitbit Air. Here’s my data from today:

Certainly, there’s some segment of the population that just wants clear-cut and simplistic data metrics on a panel, and others that want more explanations. Right now, it leans very heavily on the wordy-text aspect. I like what it’s surfacing, but at the same time, I wish I had more opportunity to tune it. I can only change those top few metrics, but I can’t otherwise completely redesign it to focus more on other data metrics. Catering to a more customizable home page would go a long way to appeasing both camps.

I’ll dive more into the app in my full review (or you can see my walk-through up above in the video), but I do want to point out that you can use multiple Google/Fitbit devices at once. At launch, you’ll be able to concurrently use a Pixel Watch with the Fitbit Air, and it’ll automatically pull in the correct data and de-duplicate it (and you can set the priority if you want). And then shortly thereafter, they’ll expand that to other Fitbit devices as well.

Revamped Google Health API’s:

One bit of pretty substantial news that’ll probably get overlooked in all the flurry of Fitbit Air hardware news is the inclusion of new API’s to get data into Google Health. Google says that the goal is that you can use Google Health (including the premium features) with any data source, even including an Apple Watch, if you want to. The underlying data (including sleep data, HRV data, etc…) will all be treated the same from an end user standpoint within the Google Health App.

To that end, Google already has its Google Health Connect, which is a set of Android API’s to get your health data into Google Health if you’re on an Android phone with Android apps. That remains the case, and is one of two routes to get data into the platform. This route is ideal if the 3rd-party partner company has an Android app, since Google Health Connect is Android only.

But, that doesn’t solve for a different type of partner, which is one that doesn’t have an Android app (or doesn’t want to develop those data sync pieces). For that, Google is re-launching their existing Fitbit API’s as the Google Health API, with a bunch of changes under the covers. This API has historically covered numerous partners, like Peloton, which allows syncing of that health/fitness data to your then-Fitbit-now-Google account. In these cases, the 3rd-party platform just wants to push data into your account, without the complexities of building out and maintaining a standalone Android app.

However, beyond that, Google is also making those API’s bidirectional, so companies can receive the fitness data from Google Health as well. There are still some aspects of this that are a bit fuzzy (for example, which file formats does Google export out in?), but it sounds like those should become clear soon.

You can find the new Google Health API platform page here, for developers. The existing Google Health Connect page is here (that remains, and gets some expansions).

Going Forward:

I’m super keen to start using this in the coming days. From a practical standpoint, I’ll really be focusing on three core areas that seem to trip up many companies in this space (the screenless wearable tracker):

1) How well does it do automatic workout recognition? Specifically, does it properly track (automatically) the start/end of workouts, and does it classify them correctly. In this case, we know Fitbit is already at a bit of a disadvantage in terms of the total sport types it knows, but it sounds like that’ll be expanding over time. Still, at least getting these core types correctly marked is a big upgrade over some of their competitors.

2) Does the battery life match the claims? Fitbit is saying 7-day battery life, and historically speaking, Fitbit is pretty good about battery claims (rarely missing them). Assuming the 7-day battery life, this isn’t as good as Whoop’s 14-day claim (and reality), but it is above Polar’s battery life. Amazfit’s battery life seems to be in that same realm as well for me.

3) Is the data accurate? In this case, I’m looking at the heart rate data, sleep data, activity data, and anything else it tracks. Fitbit says that the algorithms here are built atop the Pixel Watch 4 algorithms, and we should expect slightly improved performance from the sensor over a Charge 6 sensor. Generally speaking, the Charge 6 sensor was pretty good for sport & daily data, as long as you wore it correctly (but sacrificed the GPS in the process).

Beyond that, I’ll be diving into the app quite a bit. As noted earlier, the app is a huge piece of the puzzle, and while Fitbit is easily the current leader in taking your data and processing it with useful feedback to you, the new app has frustrated some who find it simply too wordy/talkative. I think that’s a very valid complaint, without much of a way to tweak it to be less talkative and more data-focused.

But again, all things I’ll dive into – with both my data, and likely also my wife’s usage.

With that – thanks for reading!

Found This Post Useful? Support The Site!

Hopefully you found this review/post useful. At the end of the day, I’m an athlete just like you looking for the most detail possible on a new purchase – so my review is written from the standpoint of how I used the device. The reviews generally take a lot of hours to put together, so it’s a fair bit of work (and labor of love). As you probably noticed by looking below, I also take time to answer all the questions posted in the comments – and there’s quite a bit of detail in there as well.

If you're shopping for the Fitbit Air or any other accessory items, please consider using the affiliate links below! As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. It doesn’t cost you anything extra, but your purchases help support this website a lot.

Fitbit Air

Amazon

And of course – you can always sign-up to be a DCR Supporter! That gets you an ad-free DCR, access to the DCR Shed Talkin' video series packed with behind the scenes tidbits...and it also makes you awesome. And being awesome is what it’s all about!

Thanks for reading! And as always, feel free to post comments or questions in the comments section below, I’ll be happy to try and answer them as quickly as possible. And lastly, if you felt this review was useful – I always appreciate feedback in the comments below. Thanks!

Garmin-Suunto Lawsuit Update:

You may remember that a few months back I posted about the update of the Suunto lawsuit against Garmin for a variety of things. It was basically a chef’s salad of random patent infringement complaints. Suunto originally sued back in September, but things got spicy with Garmin’s WWF-style smackdown in late December. And then on top of that, Garmin countersued Suunto for an equal random arrangement of patent infringement allegations.

Annnnyyyywaaays….

The two companies have mostly been trading various legal procedural stuff, but one notable one happened a few weeks back with Suunto’s parent company, Dongguan Liesheng. As a two-second backstory, when Suunto sued Garmin, it was Suunto proper suing Garmin. But when Garmin countersued, they expanded it to Suunto’s parent company, Dongguan Liesheng, by including a bunch of mostly no-name watches that Dongguan Liesheng sells in the US on Amazon. Legally, that was a very creative move because it ‘made it real’ for Dongguan Liesheng by effectively flipping the script and holding virtually all of their watches hostage. Essentially, Garmin decided to play hardball.

In fact, DL basically notes this in their filing, saying:

“The circumstances of Dongguan’s inclusion as a Counterclaim-Defendant strongly suggest that Garmin’s purpose in naming Dongguan was not to vindicate a legitimate infringement claim, but rather to impose the burden and expense of federal patent litigation on the foreign parent company of its litigation adversary as a tactical maneuver. “

To which, I’m sure both Garmin and anyone who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night would say: “Well, yeah, duh”.

That bit of backstory noted, back a few weeks ago Dongguan Liesheng tried to dismiss this counterclaim with a pretty robust filing to the court. This included both non-patent-specific notes, as well as a pretty long 20-page breakdown of the specific patent in question, including raising some fairly notable technical points (as I did around the flashlight piece). But, as any lawyer would know – there’s a time and a place for arguments about the merit/validity of the patent in question. This isn’t that time, it’s putting the cart in front of the horse.

Meaning, while Dongguan Liesheng may have a point there (or may not, it gets *VERY* deep into the weeds real darn quick), it doesn’t get them off the hook for having that conversation down the road.

Thus, the judge ruled a very short ‘nope’, saying:

“CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION, Dongguan Liesheng Electronic Technologyh Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss Garmin’s Claim for Infringement of the ‘351 Patent. Having considered the motion it is hereby DENIED.”

After that, Dongguan Liesheng filed a response to the court again yesterday that was pretty angry-sounding. Less so at the court, and more so at Garmin’s legal team.

“Instead, Dongguan’s Motion demonstrates that it accepts those allegations as true, as required at this stage, but points out that Garmin’s own allegations, when taken as true, are irreconcilably inconsistent with the requirements of Garmin’s own patent. This is not a factual dispute. It is a facially apparent logical contradiction within Garmin’s own pleading.”

Dongguan Liesheng seems pretty annoyed at the fact that Garmin dared expand this game of battleship to their Dongguan Liesheng watches, rather than just Suunto’s watches. Again, whether or not Dongguan Liesheng is right or wrong is beside the point here, as the correct legal term for the situation they find themselves in is just: FAFO.

Ultimately, I still suspect Dongguan Liesheng will eventually drop everything here. And again, as I noted before, I get the (very strong) impression from talking to lots of people that nobody at Suunto proper wants this lawsuit. This was very much a Dongguan Liesheng thing, coming in and seemingly thinking Garmin was going to be easy pickings for a standard patent-troll type case. Why they thought that was beyond me (or anyone else I’ve talked to). Garmin is well known for not losing many patent cases. And far more critically, Garmin has an unfathomably larger number of patents they can countersue Dongguan Liesheng with (as they’re doing here).

If there was ever a worthwhile betting pool, it’d be for when Dongguan Liesheng realizes this and moves to dismiss. After all, even Strava only took a few weeks to realize the gravity of their error.

FORM Smart Swim 2 LT – Budget Edition:

FORM, the maker of a heads-up display goggle, has introduced a new budget-friendly version. As you may remember, they’re on what is effectively their 3rd generation now. There was the original FORM Swim google, then the V2 goggle that added heart rate sensing, and then the V2 Pro that added more scratch-resistant glass. This new LT edition essentially takes the base V2 goggle (which includes updated internals and a thinned-down form factor), but doesn’t have the heart rate sensing of the V2, or the newer Gorilla Glass aspects of the Pro. But otherwise has all the same software features.

Here’s a quick comparison chart of the three of them:

Also of note in there is that SwimStraight is included in all glasses, without a subscription required. That’s the piece that keeps you going in a straight direction outdoors with a little mini-compass. Likewise, the Pro edition got reduced in price from $299 to $259, and then HeadCoach now includes all stroke types, whereas previously it was freestyle only.

I suspect the $149 price point will be much more interesting for a bunch of folks that might be skeptical about it, rather than the higher-priced options.

Peloton & Spotify Deepen Connection 

Finally, I thought this was mildly interesting, at least enough to mention. Certain Peloton classes now appear within Spotify. These classes include Strength, Stretching, Yoga, Meditation, Floor Cardio, Outdoor Running, Walking, Pilates, and Barre. Meaning classes that you generally don’t need much, if any, additional equipment for (save some weights for some strength classes).

In this case, you don’t need to be a Peloton subscriber, but rather just on Spotify. The idea here is to eventually convince people to jump over to Peloton. Plus, I suspect there’s a Spotify-driven element of trying to push people more and more to the platform for non-audio things (e.g., video content, including video podcasts).

That said, both finding and figuring out the content is kinda a mess. Simply searching for ‘Peloton’ within the Spotify app doesn’t really prioritize any of this stuff. Instead, I’m confronted with just a giant pile of both user-created and Peloton-created playlists. I guess in my head, I’d have thought Peloton would be treated as an ‘artist’, and then somehow within that I’d find workouts in a similar manner that I’d find albums/songs. But sorted better. Instead, it’s just haphazard and impossible to easily find everything.

The ‘best’ starting point is Spotify’s announcement page, but even that is super slim on jumping-off points. I suspect they want you to go to the ‘Fitness’ hub, which currently prioritizes Peloton towards the top, but again, there’s no clear ‘All Things Peloton’ home page. Or, if there is, I can’t find it (and they don’t link to it anywhere in the press materials, announcement page, or Spotify app)…which honestly tells you all you need to know.

With that – thanks for reading!

In this episode, we chat about the new Polar Street X. With a built-in flashlight, retro looks, and a great price, it has tons of potential.

For those not subscribed to the FIT File (it’s free!) via your regular podcast app or on YouTube, here’s a quick post with the highlights from the most recent episode.

Thanks to Precision Fuel & Hydration, where you can get 15% off your first order.  Additionally, check out their free Fuel & Hydration Planner.

As a reminder, here’s where you can find the podcast:

• The FIT File on YouTube.

And then for the audio-only version, you can find it here:

• Apple Podcasts
• YouTube Music
• Spotify
• RSS Feed

Thanks for listening!

The Polar Street X is Polar’s first new watch line in quite a long time. Sure, they launched the Polar Loop wearable band last fall, but that’s not a watch. Whereas the Street X is a new series device seemingly aimed to compete with something like the Garmin Instinct series, but at a more budget-friendly price – a mere $249USD. What makes it interesting are two key points: First, it’s Polar’s first watch with a flashlight built-in. And then secondly, the watch uses the company’s standardized watch platform, PolarOS.

That platform means that the watch is identical in software features to not just a slightly more expensive Polar Vantage M3, but equally a much more expensive Polar Grit X2 Pro (save the lack of storage for offline mapping). Except that software features alone don’t make a watch. From there you move to hardware, and there are some substantial differences to Polar’s other watches. Not just in the plastic looks department, but also in the internals, like GPS and heart rate. And unfortunately, in this case, those internal differences have made a big impact on my final thinking here.

In any case, I purchased this unit myself and have been testing it out over the past nearly three weeks, in runs, races, rides, in the water, and much more. I’ve got a pretty good feel for where it works well, and where it falls short. As always, I don’t accept advertising from any company I review, and no company sees my reviews before you do. So, if you found this review useful, consider becoming a DCR Supporter, which gets you an ad-free site, plus the behind-the-scenes video series between both myself (and my wife) on everything that happens in the DCR Sports Tech Cave/universe.

The Key Specs:

The Polar Street X is somewhat unique from Polar in that there’s no previous generation watch to compare it to, since it’s a new line. That said, all current-gen watches from Polar share the same PolarOS, and essentially have the same software features, except that some models also have offline mapping. But beyond that, they’re all nearly identical in software – and instead differ in hardware (e.g., battery, case design, GPS, display, etc…)

Thus, while this section would normally be comparing it to the previous version, in this case, I’m just going to cover the core specs, and then some quick differences below that:

– 45mm watch size/case
– 1.28” AMOLED touchscreen display (416x416px)
– 48g weight
– Gorilla Glass Lens
– 43-hour GPS runtime (gesture-based, not in always-on display mode)
– 10 days smartwatch time (again, gesture-based)
– MIL-STD-810H ruggedness standard
– WR50 (50-meter water resistance)
– Polar Gen 3.5 Optical HR sensor (Gen 4 is newest)
– Barometer, Magnetic Compass, Accelerometer, Gyroscope
– Priced at $249USD

Probably the closest unit to compare it to is the Polar Vantage M3, which is essentially the same size. Here are the main differences:

– Vantage M3 has multiband/dual-frequency GPS, whereas Street X has single-band
– Vantage M3 has offline maps (32GB offline storage space), Street X does not have maps or offline storage space (just 32MB)
– Vantage M3 has newer optical HR sensor (Gen4) + non-medical ECG
– Vantage M3 has a metal bezel (but otherwise a plastic case), Street X is all plastic
– Both have all identical software features except offline maps
– Both are 45mm case sizes
– Street X has an LED flashlight, Vantage M3 does not
– Street X has longer GPS claimed battery life (43 hours vs 30 hours)
– Street X has a longer smartwatch claimed battery life (10 days vs 7 days)
– Street X has MIL-STD-810H, Vantage M3 does not
– Street X is 48g, the Vantage M3 is 53g
– Street X is $249, the Vantage M3 is $399 (theoretically, in reality for European folks, it floats at 250EUR)

So in a nutshell, the Street X has the flashlight while the Vantage M3 has the offline maps and better GPS/HR sensors. Software-wise, it’s the same. Got it? Let’s dive into the Street X box.

In The Box:

Inside the Street X box you’ll find the watch, some paper stuff, the USB-C charging cable, and an extra band length (comes with both a smaller and larger size):

The charging cable matches that of all other recent (and semi-recent) Polar watches, with USB-C on one end and the magnetic charging clip on the other. Watches use these sorts of magnetic charging cables rather than direct USB-C ports on them, as ports like that tend to get clogged up with gunk (sweat/dirt/etc…) over time and it ends poorly.

Here’s a closer look at the back of the watch, which shares the same charging connection point as noted, but also has one of Polar’s seemingly many different optical HR sensor varieties (a slightly older one).

Meanwhile, closer up, you’ve got the new flashlight, as well as the faux-grain band design.

With that, let’s get into one of the biggest hardware aspects.

Style & Design:

In terms of style/looks, obviously, that’s pretty personal. Each person likes something different, so I wouldn’t take my opinion too meaningfully here. If you like it, cool! That said, a few thoughts. First, this watch is obviously designed in the same visual lineage as something like a Casio or a Garmin Instinct. Some people like that, others don’t. However, I think to me, staying with this look falls a bit flat in two specific areas.

First, the upper bezel, and in particular the simplest N/S/E/W markings just seem…unfinished. Or maybe too thin up top? I don’t know, it just seems off compared to the rest of the design. I don’t hate it, but I equally don’t love it.

Compare that to the COROS Nomad, and that looks visually a lot more complete. Of course, as many have pointed out, it looks more complete because it’s basically duplicating the Garmin Fenix look (rather than the Garmin Instinct look), but hey, at least they stuck the landing.

As for the ‘cheapness’ feeling on the Polar Street X, I will say it looks much better than most of Polar’s marketing renders, which, frankly, make it look chunky, overly plastic, and cumbersome. I was worried the buttons would look ugly in real life, but they aren’t bad to me. Additionally, I like the touch of the case screws on the top of the bezel to the main case, which helps the styling. Further, to Polar’s credit, it’s an incredibly lightweight watch, mostly because it’s a fairly small watch (more in line with a Garmin Instinct S-series unit than a larger Instinct).

Ultimately, though, as everyone else has noted, I simply don’t understand the positioning of this as an ‘Urban’ watch targeting city-going hipster Gen-Z’s, or some younger Millennials, or whatever. This is a weird common thread that Polar keeps going back to every few years, trying to market to this mythical ‘urban young hipster’ group. Be it this watch, the Polar Unite, or the Polar Ignite before it. All of which had product presentations clearly stating their desire to target hip inner-city 20-somethings. Pro Tip: When 40-somethings say they’re trying to target hip 20-somethings on skateboards, they’ve almost certainly already failed. Instead, Polar should have taken a card from COROS here, and just called it what it is: An outdoor-focused watch that has a different definitely-not-Casio-or-Instinct look.

The Basics:

In this section, I’ll cover the basics and day-to-day usage of the Street X. Aspects like daily activity tracking, sleep tracking, some of the widgets/dashboards, music control, etc… If you’re familiar with existing recent Polar products, all of this is identical to those. Nothing is really much different here.

First up, the unit has five buttons for navigating menus (three on the right, two on the left), as well as the touchscreen. You can pretty much use either method, depending on your preferences. Certain actions (like getting to the training menu) require buttons, but most swiping and selection options can be done via touch or button.

In terms of touchscreen usage, I’ve mostly had dry conditions, but haven’t had any issues with swiping with super-sweaty hands.

The main screen is of course, the watch face. You can select from a handful of different watch faces, and then customize exactly which items appear on that watch face. This is an area that Polar could really use some sort of watch face store or such. That said, some people (including myself) do tend to pretty much use stock watch faces all the time, so it just depends on your preferences.

As an interesting aside, I kinda like the haze effect that appears on the numbers. At first I thought it was an issue, but over the last nearly month, I’ve decided it’s kinda creative.

Next, if you swipe from the top, you’ll get the menu for quick actions (which is lightly customizable). These can include do-not-disturb mode, alarms, timers, airplane mode, the flashlight, and Find My Phone.

Whereas if you swipe from the bottom, you’ll see any notifications from your connected smartphone. You can open these notifications to see the full text, but you can’t see photos or respond to them from the watch.

Meanwhile, back on the watch face, if you swipe to the left or right, you’ll iterate through your different dashboards (widgets). These are categorized into core areas (like activity or sleep), and then you can open each one to dig into it more deeply. For example, here’s the Daily Activity one, which covers steps, resting heart rate, and calories:

Whereas your sleep metrics are basically broken up into three different sections – Nightly Recharge, Boost from Sleep, and Nightly Skin Temperature. As I’ve noted for a long time, Polar really needs to clean up the sleep scene here. It’s just cumbersome. For example, the first one, Nightly Recharge, then shows two buttons below it for a slate of sleep metrics (of which three taps later, you can finally see your actual sleep details):

On top of that, at random times, the Nightly Recharge simply doesn’t work. Like, throws a blank (it worked fine in the days before/after):

Then there’s Boost from Sleep. This duplicates much of the ‘how much did I sleep last night’ bits of Nightly Recharge, but then also adds a forecast of alertness/fatigue to your day (for example, below it’s showing that around 7PM I’ll be pretty alert).

I actually like this when it works; though, I find that it really struggles in the days following a low-sleep event. I’ve bounced back and forth across the pond a few times over the last few weeks, and I find the ‘Boost’ feature falls apart for days following a redeye flight. While some of that seems intuitive, it’s like the feature gives up entirely, despite how much sleep I get in those days.

Lastly, there’s Nightly Skin Temperature. The theory behind this is that it can be used to track other scenarios, primarily in ovulation tracking for women. But in practice, Polar’s never done any of that (compared to Whoop, Oura, and, to a lesser extent, Garmin), so ultimately this is mostly just a useless metric that shows you how hot your room was last night compared to previous nights.

Note that all of this stuff syncs semi-constantly to the Polar Flow app on your smartphone, where you can see the details in more depth. Polar has started revamping this app a bit over the last 3-6 months, though it honestly feels like it still has a long way to go to be competitive. To me, it feels the most dated of any of the main endurance players (Garmin, Suunto, COROS, Amazfit), and likewise dated when compared to the more mainstream smartwatch players (Apple, Google/Fitbit, Samsung).

While I noted last fall that I liked the overall styling Polar was shooting for (in early press images), once I started using it, I realized how surface-level the changes were. And more so, I realized just how much empty space there was.

Here, the dashboard is basically arranged like a chronological social media timeline. I think that can be interesting for some, but it just seems like a lot of wasted space. To me, it just feels like a lot of going back and forth to see core trends/stats, versus having those bubbled up to the main dashboard. Of course, as Garmin learned a year or so ago, no matter how you revamp the UI, some portion of the population will hate it, and some will love it. You’ll never please everyone; instead, the key is pleasing most people.

In any case, as for other widgets, there are some around Cardio Load and Workout Recommendations that I’ll cover in the next section, followed by a compass, Sunset/Sunrise times, the weather, and music control.

As for music control, there’s no offline music on this device itself; instead, it merely controls the media on your phone. That could be Spotify, or YouTube, or whatever your phone is playing.

Next, when it comes to battery life, you’re looking at about real-world 3-4 days in smartwatch mode with the always-on display enabled. This thing burns battery like nobody’s business with that display mode enabled, whereas with the more default ‘gesture-based’ setting (so the screen is off unless you raise your wrist), it’s longer. But that’s not the setting I tend to use.

Finally, for lack of putting it anywhere else, note that there are no contactless/NFC payments in any Polar watches. While Polar does sell an accessory band that works with Curve, that band doesn’t link/connect to the Polar watch in any electronic way; it’s simply a band.

The Flashlight:

This is Polar’s first watch with an integrated LED flashlight. Like others, Polar has used both a white and a red LED on the front. Also, like others, the white LED has four brightness levels, while the red LED has one brightness level. Though the flashlight on this unit is definitely dimmer than most of the others I’ve tried (including Garmin, Amazfit, and Suunto). But it’s still totally functional for most scenarios.

Speaking of which, if flashlights on watches are new to you, you’ll be pleasantly surprised. Sure, you might think it’s there for some crazy outdoor adventure in the woods, but in reality, most of the time you’ll use the flashlight to get around a new hotel room at night, find the TV remote under a couch, or changing a diaper at 3AM. Sure, all things your phone’s flashlight could be used for, but as you’ll quickly learn, having it immediately on your wrist is awesome – especially at night, or if you need your hands free. It’s become my must-have feature on watches since Garmin introduced it a few years ago.

When it comes to operating the flashlight, it’s semi-similar to others, but with a few quirks. To activate the flashlight, you’ll simply hit the upper button once during the day. It’ll show you this menu, which lets you change the color and brightness levels on the right side:

All that is pretty straightforward. The flashlight stays on as well. There are no flashing modes or such, though, like Garmin/Amazfit, nor any options to automatically enable after sunset on running modes/SOS/etc, like the others. But hey, those can come later via firmware updates.

However, the quirkiest part of the flashlight is how you enable it varies based on the time of day. During the daytime (specifically, when your watch isn’t in sleep mode), you enable via a single-tap of the upper left button. Turning it off is also a single tap. Yet, once your watch is in sleep mode, it takes a double-tap to turn it on, yet only a single tap to turn it off. If you touch it twice while it’s on, it’ll turn off and back on again. I don’t understand how these sorts of clumsy user interface inconsistencies got through internal testing.

As I’ve said before: When someone else does something well, stop re-inventing the wheel. Suunto learned this lesson in its first flashlight menu interface, and eventually fixed it to match Garmin. Amazfit didn’t mess around with their flashlight and just copied Garmin from the start. You don’t always need to copy Garmin, but sometimes, the solution that everyone’s really happy with is because it works. COROS, I hope you’re listening.

As for brightness, as I mentioned, it’s dimmer than Garmin’s flashlight, mainly because Garmin uses two white LEDs rather than the single white LED that Polar uses. For most indoor situations, this has absolutely no meaningful difference in my testing (e.g., finding a hotel bathroom, finding things under the couch, etc…). The only place it matters is outdoors, where Polar’s ‘throw’ (light distance) is definitely far dimmer.

So while it’s not quite as great for perhaps cooking a meal at a campsite, it’s totally fine for most other things. Like the Garmin lights though, it’s not great for trail running at night, in terms of illuminating your path. It’s fine for hiking (slower speed), but once you get to full speed trying to avoid rocks/roots, none of the watch flashlights have enough throw/brightness to make it viable for any meaningful duration. Trust me, I’ve tried. Though running on a path is fine, since you know you’re unlikely to run into anything big.

Overall, though, I’m super happy with Polar’s inclusion here. All I want them to do is change the silly inconsistent behavior of turning it on, and it’d be spot on. Then maybe add an ‘enable after sunset for running with flash’ option. Then, totally spot on.

Sports Modes:

In this section, I’m going to dive into all things workout and sports. So essentially, the main reason you probably bought a Polar watch is to track your workouts.

The easiest way to start a workout is to tap the lower left button, which brings you to a menu to select the sports modes (alternatively, you can long-hold the middle red button down, but I find that takes longer than tapping lower left and then selecting workouts). Point is, it brings you here:

This is where you can select your sport mode from Polar’s huge list. You can then customize these with the Polar Flow smartphone app. Both customize which modes are on your watch, as well as the specific settings on each watch. For example, your data fields, automatic lap, and so on…

Back on the watch, once you’ve selected your sport mode, you’ll be taken to the pending screen where you can wait for GPS to lock (if outside), as well as heart rate lock. Likewise, you can see the status of any accessories you might have (e.g., Bluetooth cycling power meter):

Below that, the UI has been revamped a bit to allow clearer/faster access to things like Targets, Fueling, Routes, and Settings. In the past, these were all buried under the ‘Settings’ menu, which seemed like an extra step. The rough groupings are:

Targets: This shows your favorites (e.g., your structured workouts), and training suggestions (structured workouts that Polar has come up with, based on your training load)
Fueling: Here you can enable Smart Carb reminders, Manual Carb Reminders, and Drink Reminders
Routes: You can enable breadcrumb-style route navigation (including Strava & Komoot Routes)
Settings: Enable the Always-On Display (annoyingly per each sport profile), Power Save settings, Broadcast Heart Rate to other devices, Find My Phone, Race Pace, Interval Timer, Countdown Timer, and Back to Start (navigation)

All of these individual features are the same as Polar’s other watches. So, for example, structured training allows you to iterate through a given structured workout, with it giving step-by-step guidance, such as heart rate or pace targets

Note that this is different than the training suggestions that Polar can deliver. More on those in a moment. In any case, here’s an example of a few data pages from a recent run:

If you have an automatic lap configured, you’ll get those alerts automatically. Likewise, if you’ve got any targets/etc set.

If you have a route selected, you’ll get a breadcrumb trail guidance, showing your position relative to the route. Again, there are no offline maps here. I find breadcrumb trail guidance perfectly fine for many scenarios, including following a route in a city, most trails, etc…

Where breadcrumb trail guidance becomes more challenging is when you have trail forks, where you might have three options that are all slightly different angles. With offline maps, you can see the other trails on the map, and you’ll be able to know which one is the exact one you want. With breadcrumbs, it often ends in trial and error. Not a huge deal, but that’s the main difference.

In terms of being out running, riding, swimming, etc… in bright sunlight I had no issues with display visibility. Though again, it’s slightly annoying that you set the entire watch to always-on display (enabled), and then for every single sports profile you have to manually enable it again (once per profile).

In any event, once your workout is done, you’ll see your results in the summary screen. Here’s a gallery of one of my recent interval runs:

Likewise, all of this detail is synced to Polar Flow (the smartphone app and platform), and you can view things in more graphic detail there:

While Polar has been working to revamp its Polar Flow app over the past few months, it all still feels pretty dated.

Nonetheless, going back to some of the training tidbits for a second, the watch will show you the day’s Training Suggestions in a main widget you can easily access (roughly the same level as seeing your steps/sleep data):

This looks at your recent training and activity (including sleep), and suggests workouts in three basic buckets: Strength, Cardio, and Supportive (e.g., stretching). These workouts change throughout the day. For example, if I just woke up with good sleep it may suggest I do a long run.

Note that it unfortunately doesn’t give exact paces, but rather just heart rate zones. This zone-specific training works in certain scenarios, but feels pretty outdated in 2026 (and has been outdated for years). Most coaches give a blend of zone-training for certain things (e.g., long runs), and pace training for others (e.g., intervals). Having purely super basic zone-based training just isn’t competitive with anything out there today.

Note that after I finish that run, it’ll then suggest I do some stretching instead (or likewise for some strength training).

When Polar first introduced this feature 7 years ago (then called FitSpark), it was incredibly innovative at the time. But as time has moved on, especially with the flood of AI-powered apps in recent years (some of which are good, many of which suck), this all feels pretty rudimentary. It really hasn’t changed at all. Other companies are using AMOLED displays like what Polar has to show high-resolution animations of each strength movement, they’re using all your training data combined with your planned races to give you exact hyper-specific interval pacing, and they’re doing it all for free on their watches.

Meanwhile, for training load, Polar has its Cardio Load Status, where you can see how your total training load is trending:

Again, when Polar introduced this back in 2018 (8 years ago), it was relatively on the leading edge of what watches were doing. But here in 2026, it’s half a decade behind what their competitors have introduced earlier this decade. Virtually all of their budget and premium competitors are showing charts that show your training load as it shifts over time; they show breakouts of the type of load, they show projections of race paces, and so on.

As I write this review, I think the thing that keeps sticking with me is that everything just feels forgotten these days in that Polar software realm. It’s been literally years since any significant new features have hit their watches (beyond mostly minor competitor catch-up features, like adding sleep stages or Find My Phone), especially in the sports realm. All at a time when COROS, Suunto, and Garmin are dropping boatloads of new features each quarter in firmware updates, and companies like Amazfit are doing the same via new budget watches each quarter.

And writing this section specifically, really drove home that point for me. Sure, the basics are there, but in 2026, are the basics good enough when Amazfit offers a gazillion more features that mostly work for half the price?

GPS & HR Accuracy:

(An example of just how bad the GPS tracks can be, on a simple out-and-back sidewalk run with relatively little tree cover – the satellite shadows make it look dense)

In this section, I’ll take a look at both the GPS accuracy and the heart rate accuracy of the watch, along with a brief look at altimeter (elevation) accuracy. This is done using comparisons to other devices in both its category, as well as trusted devices with good accuracy (be it heart rate, GPS, or elevation).

I’ll save you some time reading charts and graphs, however, and note that things weren’t great. In the realm of GPS, I saw the unit consistently struggle on incredibly simplistic, wide-open, straight routes while running. And then for heart rate, it was a highly mixed bag of both good and bad, depending on absolutely no pattern whatsoever. None of which is a good thing for a watch designed for the challenges of GPS accuracy in cities, or variability of HIIT workouts that Polar highlighted in their marketing materials.

In any event, let’s dive into it. Starting off with this relatively steady-state run, you can see that it handled this mostly well. It’s compared to a chest strap, as well as a slate of other optical HR sensors on my biceps:

Still, there are bits of weirdness here and there where you can see that green line kinda bump along. This is something I’ve seen for a while on Polar optical HR sensors, it just doesn’t seem to stick the landing as well as others.

Next, let’s look at a more variable run, this one with some 800m intervals:

As you can see, it handled the ‘going up’ and top of the interval without issue. But each time the interval concluded it fell apart a bit. Note that my yellow highlighter means that the blue+yellow looks green. Fear not, if you click on the actual set you’ll see it’s the blue of the Street X.

Next, what about an indoor trainer ride? Here’s a ride I did with some intervals, and you can see overall it handled that quite well. Though as usual, it’s worth noting that indoor cycling is about as easy as it gets for optical HR sensors (your hands stay in one place, there’s no road vibrations or foot strike pounding, etc)… Here’s that data set:

That said, it did have some wobbles that you can see above in the first half, and again towards the end, especially. Just part of the continued ‘always wobble’ aspect of the Polar Street X:

Heading outside on an outdoor ride, we’ll look at this situation. This was supposed to be a simple 2hr ride at steady-state, but then the loaner bike I was on got a flat, and when I went to change the flat, the valve stem separated into the pump. On top of that, there were no tire levers in the spare kit. All of which is to say the entire mess took a while to sort out, as you can see from that yellow section.

That said, up till that point, it was still pretty variable in terms of accuracy, by far the least accurate of anything there (compared to a Polar Loop optical band, a Polar H9 chest strap, and a COROS Pace Pro optical HR sensor).

But once I started dealing with the flat tire, things went crazy-pants. And look, I’m not usually going to judge an optical HR sensor for how well it handles a tire change. But still, it shouldn’t be *THAT* bad. Sigh.

Finally, one last ride I did, this one into the mountains near where I live in Spain. This includes, obviously, a long sustained climb section, and then a descent. Here, you can see things did not end well:

Even compared to the budget Garmin Instinct E (yes, really, the E), which is basically the direct competitor here (albeit MIPS display instead of AMOLED), except in that case the HR is largely pretty good, and the GPS is identical to that of the higher-end Fenix 8 Pro in these conditions.

I guess I just don’t know what to say here, the HR simply isn’t good on the Polar Street X.

So, let’s shift to the GPS side of things. That too is kinda like the heart rate, except arguably worse. Certainly, the unit lacks a multiband GNSS chipset, but frankly, that’s not the issue. Some other factor is (be it antenna design, software, not paying off the GPS gods…I don’t know). There are countless single-band GPS watches out there that do far better than this (including Polar’s own from a decade ago).

In any case, a simple run on a sidewalk with virtually no meaningful tree cover in a very straight line, and the Polar Street X is…well…all over the street. First up, at a high level, it might look fine:

But, the moment you zoom in, you see the issues in that green line just meandering constantly.

Sure, the other units might be off a meter or two here and there, but Polar is consistently off by considerably more:

This should be the easiest possible run. There’s literally nothing above me except sun, yet it’s consistently wandering and wobbling its way down the path. And this has been a common theme over and over again.

For example, here’s another run, this one some intervals, not that it matters, but you can see the Polar Street X track is consistently…well…inconsistent:

Or another one here:

Here’s another run, this time in the jungle/trees. This is an out-and-back, and certainly, there’s a bit of variance between the out/back tracks on both the Garmin Fenix 8 Pro & COROS Pace Pro. But if you look at the Fenix for example, the out/back track is almost identical to itself. The COROS does vary a bit more around one of the turns. That said, the Polar Street X takes the cake when it comes to wobble-factor and each direction being totally different. Here’s the non-satellite view:

And then here’s the satellite view:

The same applied to a recent half-marathon I did back in Spain, where in light city coverage, it was just everywhere. These were typically 3-5 story buildings, with a few taller ones. For a watch marketed at the ‘urban athlete’, it’s really not good there (and this just shows a few random street corners, out of many missed streets/corners):

Meanwhile, over on cycling, this first route is as straight as they get, and at a high level, it looks OK:

And for the most part, when zoomed in, it is OK. It’s a perfectly straight road at a moderate cycling speed. But the moment I had a single turn (the only turn)? It went into the bushes:

Next, up in the mountains (road-riding), it was similar. When you were going straight, it was fine, but the moment a turn was involved, it basically went off the road. And again here, it was beaten by the older budget Garmin Instinct E.

Beaten by the Instinct E is a special kind of honor. That’s a watch that (probably entirely unfairly) is the least liked watch in the entire lineup…and yet here we are.

If there’s any bright side, the elevation profiles for all my runs and rides have been perfectly fine. So at least the altimeter is working fine. Here’s an example from that road cycling into the mountains:

Ultimately, though, the GPS & heart rate accuracy on this unit are not good. The GPS is one of the least accurate models I’ve tested in the last year, and certainly the least accurate Polar model I’ve tested in a long time. And likewise, the HR, while not horrendous running, is pretty bad cycling. Ultimately, it’s just too bad Polar is really struggling in this area, for a watch aimed at athletes.

(Note: All of the charts in these accuracy portions were created using the DCR Analyzer tool.  It allows you to compare power meters/trainers, heart rate, cadence, speed/pace, running power, GPS tracks, and plenty more. You can use it as well for your own gadget comparisons, more details here.)

Wrap-Up:

The Polar Street X represents an interesting choice for the company. On one hand, Polar finally seems to be understanding that pricing is everything when you aren’t the market leader. This unit is priced incredibly well, both generally speaking, as well as compared to their competitors, with Casio-like styling/designs. Likewise, the inclusion of a flashlight in the watch is very much appreciated. Kudos on getting that done. Same goes for making something that doesn’t look like the rest of their watches, as others have shown – variability in looks/design can be key to attracting different/new buyers.

On paper, I was very excited for this watch. But once I started using it, I’m kinda mixed/lukewarm. The subpar and struggling GPS accuracy in the real world makes it super challenging to recommend generally, let alone for the ‘cities’ that Polar envisions. While one might initially blame this on using a single-band GPS chipset, the reality is that plenty of companies easily use single-band GPS chipsets with far greater accuracy than Polar does here with the Street X. Multiband vs single isn’t the issue here. Meanwhile, when it comes to heart rate accuracy, the unit just randomly struggles with no obvious correlation to complexity. Again, this makes it really challenging to recommend to more difficult heart rate scenarios like HIIT, etc…all of which Polar highlights as being targets for this watch.

But the biggest challenge I have is simply Polar’s non-existent track record over the last few years on new features via firmware updates. In a time when COROS, Suunto, and Garmin (and even Amazfit to a recent degree) have really ramped up with major sets of quarterly updates, Polar is mostly adding in table-stakes features that were common years ago. Yes, they are appreciated for existing Polar users, but none of them are new to the industry, and virtually all of them are already on their competitors’ watches.

However, even more challenging is that there seems to be no real urgency on Polar’s behalf for either getting their app revamped/finished, or shifting to a faster release cadence for firmware features. There doesn’t seem to be an awareness of how far behind they’re falling in relation to those two things. One can argue whether or not they like the style of a given brand’s app, but you can’t argue that Polar is not leading in features and functionality. The depth offered by Amazfit, Garmin, Suunto, Fitbit/Google, and others now far exceeds that of Polar.

Which, I suppose, is an entirely different post worth exploring on a different day. In the meantime, for the Polar Street X, there may be a specific crossover of the market that doesn’t care about new features, battery life, accuracy, or app functionality. And for that portion of the market, this is priced super well.

With that, thanks for reading!

Found This Post Useful? Support The Site!

Hopefully you found this review/post useful. At the end of the day, I’m an athlete just like you looking for the most detail possible on a new purchase – so my review is written from the standpoint of how I used the device. The reviews generally take a lot of hours to put together, so it’s a fair bit of work (and labor of love). As you probably noticed by looking below, I also take time to answer all the questions posted in the comments – and there’s quite a bit of detail in there as well.

If you're shopping for the Polar Street X or any other accessory items, please consider using the affiliate links below! As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. It doesn’t cost you anything extra, but your purchases help support this website a lot.

Polar Street X

Amazon REI

Here's a few other variants or sibling products that are worth considering:

Polar Vantage M3

Amazon REI

Polar Vantage V3

Amazon REI

Polar Grit X2 Pro

Amazon REI

And of course – you can always sign-up to be a DCR Supporter! That gets you an ad-free DCR, access to the DCR Shed Talkin' video series packed with behind the scenes tidbits...and it also makes you awesome. And being awesome is what it’s all about!

Thanks for reading! And as always, feel free to post comments or questions in the comments section below, I’ll be happy to try and answer them as quickly as possible. And lastly, if you felt this review was useful – I always appreciate feedback in the comments below. Thanks!

Zwift has announced they’ve acquired Rouvy, including the FulGaz platform that Rouvy acquired previously. Likewise, Rouvy had previously acquired Bkool last summer, but ultimately folded that very similar platform into Rouvy last month and shut down Bkool.

However, unlike the Rouvy/Bkool combo, Zwift says that they plan to run the two companies as-is with separate roadmaps and subscription services. In fact, short of a few hardware compatibility tweaks, there’s almost nothing meaningful changing for either side (including for both employees and users).

Zwift specifically noted that “Both Zwift and ROUVY will continue to operate independently, with differentiated roadmaps and subscription packages”. Zwift did not disclose the financial terms of the acquisition.

What Changes?

(Screenshot from a year ago, when Rouvy added unofficial support for Zwift hardware)

Essentially, one main thing is changing going forward, which is full support for Zwift hardware within Rouvy. This is specifically focused on the Zwift Click/Cog, as well as the Zwift Ride platform. At this point, the Zwift Play isn’t included, since it’s not technically doing Zwift Protocol (Zwift said it’s unclear if that’ll change down the road).

This is kinda a funny turning point, since it was Rouvy that first reverse-engineered the Zwift hardware to work within Rouvy (albeit to varying and often shifting degrees of success). That was needed because instead of adopting (or expanding) industry standards, Zwift created the Zwift Protocol and basically forced the trainer manufacturers to adopt it (which they all did). That left apps like Rouvy somewhat out in the cold when it came to consumers wanting to use the Zwift Cog-equipped trainers.

The bright side here for Rouvy customers is that Zwift says starting today, that’s officially supported in Rouvy. That comes in basically two parts. First is a software update in Rouvy that improves compatibility, and then secondly being the actual support side of things. Further, Zwift says that they expect to continue to refine/tweak the integration within Rouvy to improve it a bit. Today, that integration will include virtual shifting as well as in-game navigation. Whereas currently Rouvy as a platform doesn’t have any support for (or concept of) steering or braking, so those aren’t enabled today.

The downside of course is that this doesn’t move Zwift Protocol any closer to being an industry standard, and thus arguably, that hurts consumers since the main proponent of trying to open that up is now out of the picture (or, in the picture depending on how you look at it).

Beyond that hardware change, literally nothing else changes. For example, I asked about all the following:

Will users of either platform get access to the other side? Nope, subscriptions stay the same.

Will Rouvy highlight aspects of the Tour de France avec Femmes: Nope, those sponsorships stay the same.

Will team sponsorships change in any way? Nope, existing pro teams that are sponsored by both sides stay as-is.

Will completed activities in Rouvy update your Zwift training history/load/etc…? Nope, at least not anytime soon. Maybe down the road, but it didn’t sound like this was on the radar.

Will different experiences be migrated from one side to the other? Nope, no changes there either.

Will there be a squirrel in Rouvy? I didn’t ask this, though, I should. But I think we know the answer.

Does Rouvy CEO Petr Samek stay? Yup, he stays onboard to lead the Rouvy side of things. That’s a good thing, as he’s a smart (and very technical) duck, and I think he brings some unique tech insights that could benefit both Zwift and Rouvy.

See, this is simple, right?

The Future?

One thing I asked was what the point of all this was. Why bother acquiring Rouvy? Zwift’s spokesman said:

“We both believe that together we’re going to be able to grow the industry together, and not worry about competing with one another.

We’ve proven there’s a market for both video and virtual graphic experiences in indoor cycling, and having those two experience under the same family is a strong point.”

This roughly matches the press release remarks from Zwift CEO Eric Min, saying:

“We have a huge amount of respect for what ROUVY has achieved, developing a fantastic product and growing their global community by demonstrating there is a strong market for real video experiences. ROUVY’s differentiated experience is proof we can be stronger together, and I’m excited to see how this deal will accelerate our mission to make more people, more active, more often.”

Still, perhaps the more interesting thing to me is the fact that there are no plans for a subscription bundle or such at this point. In other words, this is more akin to owning multiple properties rather than making that appealing as an increased platform for cyclists. And perhaps that’ll change at some point, but with Zwift, Rouvy, and FulGaz under a single umbrella, it kinda makes sense to try and make that more appealing to consumers.

But then again, while Zwift and Rouvy certainly compete against each other in terms of both being indoor training platforms, they are different types of platforms. In the same way that a mountain bike and a road bike are different. If you’re into the Rouvy real-course videos (but not Zwift virtual worlds), then from a competitor platform standpoint, Zwift really isn’t on your slate of suitors.

What it Means for Competition:

And I think that ultimately gets to whether this hurts or helps consumers, and frankly, I think that depends on which consumers we want to talk about. Meaning, if you’re a Rouvy user, I see this as largely a good thing. You’ve now got true and proper access to Zwift hardware (and far more importantly, 3rd-party trainers that have Zwift Cog in them). Likewise, this opens up better integration for smart bikes that are using Zwift Protocol (for example, the Muov Bike).

Next, if you’re a Zwift user, I don’t really see this changing anything about your scene. You aren’t gaining anything, nor are you losing anything. You’re just…still there…doing your thing.

The bigger question is how it impacts the rest of the industry/consumers. And the first consideration there is probably price. And here’s the thing: I don’t think Zwift really cares, to an extent, what their competitors are doing on price. The reason is simple: Zwift knows it has a unique value prop, for users who value the features it has today.

(Above: TrainingPeaks Virtual)

Meaning, if you’re on Zwift today, then you’ve *already* chosen to pay that subscription fee over going to MyWhoosh (which is free), or TrainingPeaks Virtual (which is either a bit cheaper, or a lot cheaper, depending on all sorts of factors), or some other smaller 3rd-party app. Rouvy previously wasn’t likely in that matrix of competitors for you, since it’s a totally different experience.

And to put a further point on that, the most common refrain I hear is “I’m going to jump to MyWhoosh, cause it’s free”, except here’s the thing: Zwift just keeps growing. And more critically, Zwift has realized that they can’t ever compete on price with a state-sponsored app. It’s factually a simple reality. Instead, they’re going to compete on where people want to be. For some people, they’re totally good with the MyWhoosh experience for free, because they don’t leverage or want the added Zwift aspects. And for others, they decide they want to pay for Zwift.

But critically, I don’t see that impacting Zwift’s long-term thinking on prices (short of Zwift trying to double prices). In the same way that Peloton doesn’t really care about what Apple Fitness+ does on pricing, the user groups are largely different, despite having theoretical overlap. Likewise, we’ve seen TrainerRoad raise prices, because they decided to. Not because they had a higher price watermark. To be clear, Zwift isn’t saying they’re increasing prices of either platform, but that’s ultimately a common concern when competitors consolidate.

Said differently: Tech companies will continue to raise prices until enough people cancel that the lost revenue outweighs the revenue gained. Despite a plethora of video streaming services, I got a notice a couple of days ago that my Netflix price is rising yet again. Competition doesn’t always translate into lower prices, though it can translate to better products, which is what I think is more relevant here in this space.

If competitors like MyWhoosh and others hadn’t existed, I suspect we’d see Zwift’s pace of innovation slow. But equally, there’s virtually nothing Rouvy did that drove Zwift to implement a new technical feature, because the app concepts were so different (video vs virtual world).

With that – we’ll see how things change over the next year. I’m cautiously interested.

Thanks for reading!