Sunday race
In this weekly columnAndroid Central Wearables Editor Michael Hicks talks about the world of wearables, apps, and fitness tech related to running and health, in his quest to get faster and fitter.
Over the past year, I’ve been gently criticising Samsung for not taking fitness as seriously as its rivals. Unpacked revealed that the Galaxy Watch 7 and Ultra had improved heart rate accuracy and dual-band GPS, which turned my enthusiasm for the watches up to 11, but I needed to test these improvements for myself. Two days into my run, I’m extremely optimistic!
My Galaxy Watch Ultra The review unit arrived on Thursday afternoon when it was 102ºF, so my testing time was limited to the last two sweaty mornings (I'm writing this on Saturday). I'll be doing more extensive testing in about 1.5 weeks, but I wanted to get this out quickly for anyone considering pre-ordering a Watch 7 or Ultra.
There are four major updates from the Watch 6 to Galaxy Watch 7 and Ultra: faster Exynos, doubled storage, tripled LEDs on the bottom health sensors, and dual-band GPS. The first two are welcome but predictable for an annual update, while the value of the latter two is somewhat subjective. Is the older Watch 6's heart rate and GPS data good enough for you to wait to upgrade, or are Wear OS athletes need the update?
My Galaxy Watch Ultra Fitness Test
To test its accuracy, I ran wearing the Galaxy Watch Ultra on my left wrist, Garmin Forerunner 965 to my right, and COROS Heart Rate Monitor on my arm synced with the Garmin for more accurate heart rate results.
The Garmin watch was set to SatIQ mode, which starts with GPS only to save battery but switches to dual-band mode if the signal is blocked. In theory, the Galaxy Watch Ultra stays in dual-band mode by default, which would be more reliable.
Image 1 of 3
My first 5K jogging loop ended with the Garmin and Samsung clocking 3.11 miles with an average heart rate of 159 bpm. It was a great start, although the graph above shows a couple of gaps in heart rate where the Samsung over- or underestimated my effort, but those were offset. The GPS map shows that the Garmin (blue) stayed closer to my path, while the Samsung (orange) veered more toward the road throughout the loop.
Image 1 of 4
My second five-mile run ended with the Galaxy Watch Ultra recording 5.07 miles and averaging 145 bpm. The Garmin Forerunner 965 measured 5.02 miles and the COROS HRM measured 146 bpm.
In this test, the Galaxy Watch Ultra’s dual-band GPS map performed better than Garmin’s SatIQ map. On an out-and-back route, the Samsung stayed more consistent on the running path, while the Garmin veered off the path. And at one early point where I was running on the street past construction, the Samsung better captured the moment when I stopped and turned around to watch cars go by.
As for heart rate, the Samsung generally matched the peaks and valleys of the heart rate monitor, but fell a bit behind during rapid changes. This is fairly consistent for wrist-based optical heart rate data, so the Samsung is in good company. Aside from a couple of glitches, the Ultra stayed close in accuracy.
Image 1 of 2
To wrap things up, I did a quick mile run on lane 2 of a track to test the Galaxy Watch Ultra’s accuracy at maximum effort. In this case, Samsung measured 1670m, while the exact distance was 1640m; the Ultra’s average of 171bpm was 6bpm lower than the COROS HRM’s.
You'll notice the heart rate issues right away at the start of my run. I attribute this to taking the watch off for pre-race photos and not adjusting it enough — it wobbled around when I pumped my arms until I adjusted it during the first lap, and the results improved (though not immediately). Still, the Galaxy Watch Ultra's results were off by about 5 to 8 bpm at various points before returning to normal during the final lap.
The GPS map was a bit crazy, but I haven't found it yet. any fitness watch that fits perfectly into my lane during a track race, so I wouldn't give it too much thought.
Overall, my GPS results were significantly better than what I got during Last year's Galaxy Watch 6 fitness testMy heart rate results were better, but I want to do more anaerobic training to see if the track running issues were a fluke.
As a side note, the Samsung's step count was a little spotty. It was almost accurate when walking 1000 steps while it was counting, but I suspect it skips a few steps while you're running. My cadence (steps per minute) was off by a few bpm on each run, and my daily Ultra step count was about 100 steps shorter than the Forerunner 965 for every few thousand steps. Garmin watches have won several From my step counting testsThat's why I trust your data more here.
Thoughts on training with the Galaxy Watch Ultra
The Galaxy Watch Ultra and Watch 7 have the same dual-band GPS and updated heart rate LEDs, so you should get better fitness results than the last-gen Galaxy Watches no matter which one you choose.
Focusing specifically on the Galaxy Watch Ultra, I wrote earlier this week that I'm… Disappointed that Ultra has an inactive crownI love having a dedicated button to pause or restart workouts, but I'm annoyed that I have to swipe multiple times to switch between screens, even when I'm trying to wipe sweat off my fingers. It's not a major issue, but I'll hold out hope that Samsung makes it into a proper crown for future Ultras.
Samsung sent me the bulkier Ocean band when I would have preferred the nylon Trail band to take some of the weight off and fit the Ultra more neatly on my wrist. My arm has gotten used to heavy fitness watches over the years, so I didn’t find the Galaxy Watch Ultra too difficult to wear; that said, people with smaller wrists will want to try one on first and see how they like it.
I love the jump to 3000 nits of brightness on the screen. As my Apple Watch Ultra 2Colors remain vibrant and text legible in sunny conditions.
Samsung told us the Galaxy Watch Ultra can last 16 hours under normal conditions with the GPS fully charged. I started my run with the Ultra fully charged and ended up with 85% after two cumulative hours of running and walking with automatic tracking. In theory, that would put the Ultra on track to last 13 hours, which isn’t too far off Samsung’s promise.
If nothing changes in future tests, the Galaxy Watch Ultra (or the more affordable Galaxy Watch 7) will easily join the The best fitness watches Samsung still has a ways to go on the software side (I'd love to see Training Load or recommended workouts in future Wear OS updates), but on the hardware side, it's caught up with the competition.
Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra
Leave feedback about this