I test smartwatches for a living — and these are my 5 favorite models when I go hiking
However, higher-end models like the Garmin Instinct 3 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 bring exceptional durability and other nifty features — including a built-in LED flashlight on the Garmin — into the equation. Want something supremely comfortable and reliable? The Garmin Forerunner 165 might be your jam.
Having tested dozens of smartwatches while hiking the mountains of the U.S. Pacific Northwest, I know firsthand which models are primo trail companions and which are better left in the car. With that, here are my five favorite smartwatches for hikers in 2025.
The Garmin Instinct 3 is one of my favorite smartwatches currently available. This is thanks to its rock-solid location tracking, range of useful wellness tools, support for tons of outdoor activities, and, perhaps most importantly, its long-lasting nature.
The Instinct 3 comes in several varieties, including with optional solar charging capabilities. With enough time in front of the sun, the Instinct 3 Solar can, in theory, last forever without needing to visit a wall outlet or USB slot. The standard AMOLED model, meanwhile, will keep on ticking for well over two weeks.
The device is also built to take on whatever the outdoors can toss at it, with 100 meters of water resistance and an oversized metal reinforced bezel to protect the screen.
The Garmin Instinct 3 starts at $399 for the smaller 45mm Solar model and increases to $449 for the larger 50mm Solar edition. The 45mm AMOLED model is $449, and the larger 50mm AMOLED version is $499.
The Garmin Forerunner 165 is technically a mid-entry-level running watch, but all the things that make it great for first-time marathoners also make it exceptional for hikers
Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
Stacked with some of Garmin's best workout training and recovery tools, not to mention impressive sleep tracking capabilities, it's also an exceptional value, easily found for under $200. For hikers, in particular, it keeps tabs on key metrics like elevation gain, pace and distance. It also has safety features, including LiveTrack and Incident Detection.
Battery life when using GPS tracking should also be good for even the longest day hikes, up to 19 hours. It also comes in two lightweight, easy-wearing sizes and boasts a bright AMOLED touchscreen paired with physical buttons for when your hands are extra sweaty mid-hike.
The Garmin Forerunner 165 starts at $249 but can often be found for $50 off. There's also a Music edition of the Forerunner 165, which has, you guessed it, onboard storage for tunes. That model will cost you an extra $50, but like the standard model, it often goes on sale.
If you want a super-rugged smartwatch that'll take a licking and keep on ticking (okay, that's an old Timex slogan) without spending Apple Watch Ultra 2-type cash, then the Amazfit T-Rex 3 is worth a look.
This oversized beast has a massive 1.5-inch AMOLED touchscreen that maxes out at an impressive 2,000 nits. This is paired with a whole bunch of physical buttons, all tucked nearly into a rather cool-looking octagonal case with a big ol' stainless steel bezel.
Battery life with GPS tracking should easily get you through 36 hours or more of hiking. With 100 meters of water resistance, dual-band GPS, and even support for offline navigational maps, it's kind of amazing that the T-Rex 3 can be yours for around $250.
The beastly Amazfit T-Rex 3 is priced at $279 but can easily be acquired for between $25 and $50 off. It only comes in one size, and though the nearly 49mm case won't be for everyone, the T-Rex 3 is a mighty-fine alternative to the Apple Watch Ultra 2.
The Amazfit Active 2 has nearly all the same bells and whistles as the T-Rex 3, just squeezed into a more streamlined, easy-wearing case. Starting at less than $100, this admittedly handsome-looking smartwatch has onboard GPS, supports 160+ workout types, sports a bright AMOLED touchscreen and can track a hearty day's workout with plenty of battery to spare, making it one of the best bang-for-your-buck wearables in 2025.
However, the most shocking feature, given the price, is support for offline navigational maps. While a little rough around the edges and somewhat limited in capability compared to, say, Apple, Garmin and Google's take, this is a tool ordinarily only found on far pricer smartwatch models.
Also worth noting: Amazfit is very good about responding to user feedback with firmware updates, and even within the few months that have passed since I reviewed the Active 2, it's already seen several enhancements.
The Amazfit Active 2 comes in two variants. The standard $99 model has an aluminum case and glass screen. The higher-end Active 2 premium edition ups the ante with a tougher sapphire crystal screen and stainless steel case for an extra $30.
Neither Garmin nor Amazfit makes smartwatches with cellular connectivity. Fortunately, brands like Apple, Samsung and Google do. My favorite cellular-connected smartwatch is the Apple Watch Ultra 2.
Similar to the best Garmin watches, the Ultra 2 is jam-packed with impressive safety features, like fall and crash detection, along with Emergency SOS.
It also makes for a mighty good hiking partner thanks to a long-lasting battery — up to 35 hours when tracking a hike with GPS enabled — a tough-built design with 100 meters of water resistance, and accurate location and holistic tracking. You also get a sweet, customizable 'Action' button (plus, a side button and digital crown) along with a super-bright and immersive touchscreen.
The Apple Watch Ultra 2 comes in a variety of case colors, including black (shown here), each for $799. Cellular connectivity comes standard, though you're not required to have a data plan to use the Ultra 2.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
12 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Garmin Venu 3 review: A great fitness tracker, but it falls short as a smartwatch
For the last four months, I've been testing the best Garmin watches available. The Venu 3 is Garmin's most advanced smartwatch yet, and it's built on the same top-tier fitness foundation the brand is known for. In addition to having a built-in microphone and speaker, it has best-in-class GPS, industry-leading heart rate tracking, and deep recovery metrics. During testing, I found the ability to answer calls and texts from my wrist was nice, but the advantages felt pretty limited in this model. Moreover, if your goal is to track workouts, stay on top of your stress and sleep, and see who's texting or emailing you without your phone nearby, I think the Vivoactive 6 is going to be a better pick — at a better price — for the majority of people looking for a smart fitness watch. (Check out our full Vivoactive 6 review.) While the Venu 3 is all-in-all a solid watch, after testing it for the last few months, I don't think it's the best value for your money. Here's why. What I found after 3 months of testing It's built on Garmin's fitness tracking power. Garmin has some of the best fitness tracking technology, based on a long-standing foundation of very accurate GPS and heart rate detection. With this core, the Venu 3 has a lot of the same features and abilities that make Garmin's other lifestyle watches great for fitness devotees: it tracks your steps, sleep, and stress automatically; has 30 pre-loaded activity profiles you can manually use to track workouts with helpful in-the-moment stats like heart rate, pace, and distance; it uses your health and activity data to determine your "body battery" energy and recovery levels throughout the day; and it has a digital coach for training and improving your sleep. Every morning, the Venu 3 delivers a morning report with sleep quality, body battery, and a daily suggested workout. And, like most every Garmin watch, the face and data fields are fully customizable in the app so you can tweak the watch to match your needs. It's sleek, intuitive, and has a great battery life. The Venu 3, like most Garmin models, has many other perks than the foundational tech: It has an exceptionally long battery life (14 days in smartwatch mode, or 26 hours in GPS mode), which means you can more continuously track sleep and daytime stress, and you can leave your charger behind for short travels. The AMOLED display is crisp and vivid, the interface intuitive, and the case design more refined than past Garmin watches (though it looks very similar to the Vivoactive 6). You can customize the watch face so it looks as sporty or as sleek as you prefer. I also appreciate that it comes in two sizes, the smaller Venu 3S with a 41mm screen and the Venu 3 with a 45mm screen. It's a smarter watch…sort of. The biggest headline that sets the Venu 3 apart from Garmin's other watches is that it has a built-in microphone and speaker. This means you can take calls and use your phone's voice assistant directly from your wrist — something the Vivoactive 6 and Garmin's less-smart watches can't do. On one hand, I found this feature genuinely convenient during moments like taking quick "need anything on my way home" calls from my husband, or replying to a text while hands-deep in pie crust. A quick voice reply definitely beats tracking down my phone for a short answer or trying to swipe with messy fingers. I also found the voice-to-text feature worked just as well (if not better) than using Siri to dictate. That said, there's a big catch: your phone has to be unlocked for you to do anything beyond responding to an incoming text or answering a call. Unlike with, say, an Apple Watch, the Venu 3 can't initiate a text to someone, reply to a text from earlier in the day, or even add something to your Notes app without your phone being unlocked first. I found this to be quite frustrating; this limitation really narrowed how often the on-wrist reply function was actually usable. The voice assistant access was also finicky — sometimes I'd press and hold the middle button and it would say "connecting to voice assistant," only to immediately go back to the home screen. In short, it's not quite the seamless smart assistant experience you get from an Apple Watch or Galaxy Watch. If you're an Android user, you have a little more to work with: You can access quick-reply features, and these only need Bluetooth, not voice assistant, so you can shoot a pre-set canned reply even if your phone is locked. Why it's not worth $150 more than the Garmin Vivoactive 6 Having tested both of these watches over the last three months, I can tell you Garmin's two smartwatches are very, very similar. The main difference: The Venu 3 is slightly smarter but also significantly more expensive than the Vivoactive 6. Here's what $150 more will get you with the Venu 3: Ability to take phone calls on-wrist. Ability to use voice assistant and reply to incoming texts on-wrist. Ability to initiate pre-set texts on an Android on-wrist. 14 days of battery life vs. 11 days in the Vivoactive 6. 30 preloaded activity profiles vs. 80 in the Vivoactive 6. Slightly higher display resolution. A built-in barometric altimeter for more accurate elevation tracking. In my opinion, unless you take quick phone calls a lot or use voice assistant all the time (and have your phone unlocked to do so), the Vivoactive 6 is a much better value for your money. How it compares to other smart watches If you are more interested in having a great smartwatch that does a good-enough job at tracking workouts, then your decision is really between the Garmin Venu 3, the Apple Watch Series 10, and the Google Pixel Watch 3. (After testing the Fitbit Versa 4, I can confirm it doesn't have a seat at this table.) All three watches are a similar price ($400 to $500), have a sleek and clean design, and have an intense, visually rich display (the Venu 3 and Pixel 3 use AMOLED, while the Apple Watch 10 uses retina OLED). The Venu 3 has a significantly longer battery life (14 days vs. 18-24 hours), a far more accurate GPS, and far more accurate heart rate sensor than either competitor. Overall, this means the Venu 3 is going to be better at tracking your health and fitness and delivering deeper, more insightful metrics than the Apple Watch Series 10, including personalized coaching for free in the Garmin app. That said, the Apple Watch Series 10 does a good enough job at tracking workouts for most people (and auto-tracks them, which Garmins do not), is very good at analyzing sleep, and is way better at being a smartwatch for iPhone users compared to the Venu 3. The Apple Watch integrates better with the iPhone ecosystem, so you have more apps on-wrist (including navigation from Apple Maps), access to Siri, and voice control without needing to unlock your phone. You will have to charge it every 1-2 days, though. The Pixel Watch 3, meanwhile, integrates much better with the Android ecosystem than the Venu 3 — you can access more apps and Google Assistant from your wrist versus just receiving notifications and responding to texts and phone calls. The Pixel Watch is built on Fitbit's technology, so its workout and sleep tracking are pretty good, though it can't compete with Garmin's GPS or recovery insights. And, like the Apple Watches, the Pixel 3 needs to be charged every 1-2 days versus the Venu 3's 14-day battery life. For more picks, check out our guide to the best smartwatches and best fitness trackers. The bottom line The Venu 3 may be Garmin's most advanced smartwatch, but it's not $150 smarter than the Vivoactive 6. While it's nice to have an on-wrist speaker and mic sometimes, the need to unlock your phone for access is too much of a limitation for us to justify spending $450 on this watch. If fitness is your priority, the Vivoactive 6 is a great wearable with basic smartwatch functions (e.g., on-wrist notifications, Garmin Pay, music control) and way more activity profiles, all at a more affordable price than Apple or Google watches. However, if an advanced smartwatch is your priority, you may be happier with an Apple Watch Series 10 or Google Pixel 3 for a similar price to the Venu 3.
Android Authority
42 minutes ago
- Android Authority
Study finds your smartwatch might be way off on one key health stat
Kris Carlon / Android Authority TL;DR Study finds smartwatch stress scores often don't match how you actually feel. Researchers tracked 800 Garmin users for three months and saw 'basically zero' correlation for stress. Sleep tracking was more accurate, but better at logging hours slept than rest quality. They're meant to be your health sidekick, you might suspect that there's only so much that a wearable can tell you about your mental state from taking a pulse reading. If this wasn't already obvious, new research appears to confirm that your smartwatch might be completely misreading your mood. Don't want to miss the best from Android Authority? Set us as a preferred source in Google Search to support us and make sure you never miss our latest exclusive reports, expert analysis, and much more. A study published in the Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science and reported by The Guardian found that a smartwatch often confuses stress with excitement — and could flag you as overworked when you're actually having fun. Researchers tracked 800 young adults wearing Garmin Vivosmart 4 devices for three months, comparing the watches' stress, fatigue, and sleep scores with what participants reported feeling at the time. According to Eiko Fried, an associate professor at Leiden University and lead author of the study, the verdict on stress tracking was that there was 'basically zero' correlation. He said his own Garmin has told him he was stressed while working out at the gym or catching up with an old friend at a wedding. 'These are consumer devices, not medical devices,' Fried warned. Andy Walker / Android Authority Fatigue tracking fared slightly better, and sleep readings were the most accurate of the bunch. Two-thirds of participants saw a clear match between their self-reported good nights and the watch logging about two extra hours of sleep. Still, the researchers say these devices are better at measuring how long you slept than how well-rested you actually feel. The team hopes the findings will help guide future work on using wearable data for early warnings about mental health issues like depression. But for now, they caution against taking stress scores too seriously — think of them as a rough guide, not a definitive read on your emotional state. Has your smartwatch ever told you you're stressed when you're just feeling excited? 0 votes Yes, often. NaN % Yes, at least once. NaN % Never. NaN % Follow
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
I biked 11 miles with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570 — here's the winner
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. I biked 11 miles wearing the Garmin Forerunner 570 on one wrist and the Apple Watch Series 10 on the other to find out which of these modern, powerhouse smartwatch models is the more capable fitness tracker. This is the second time these two have gone head-to-head in a Tom's Guide tracking accuracy challenge. In their previous showdown, where I walked 5,500 steps with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570, the Garmin came out on top, but only by the thinnest of margins. Will the results be the same when I swap out walking for cycling? There's only one way to find out. Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Apple Watch 10: Quick comparison The Garmin Forerunner 570 is a sporty, long-lasting smartwatch built for passionate runners. It comes packed with all sorts of fancy features to help you train for marathons and other racing events, improve your running form, maximize your recovery, and more. A bright AMOLED screen and comfy design make it a pleasure to have on the wrist. View Deal The Apple Watch Series 10 is one of the most well-rounded smartwatches you can buy today, with a sleek and comfortable case design, a bright and immersive screen, useful safety and wellness monitoring tools, features to help you keep tabs on your physical fitness and sleep, and access to an enormous library of apps. View Deal But first, how do these two smartwatches stack up? While the Apple Watch Series 10 debuted last fall, with a starting price of $399, the Garmin Forerunner 570 launched earlier this summer for $549. With better battery life than the Apple Watch, more fitness training and recovery tools, and a sporty aesthetic, the Forerunner 570 is designed to be a runner's best friend. The Apple Watch 10, meanwhile, is built to be the ultimate do-it-all smartwatch, offering a mix of useful fitness and wellness-tracking tools and plenty of useful smart apps. Both boast sizable AMOLED screens, but the Series 10 has a higher maximum brightness, making it easier to read in direct sunlight. Under the hood, you'll find comparably holistic tech, including optical heart rate sensors, pulse oximeters (though access to this is turned off on the Apple Watch 10 for U.S. customers), GPS for location tracking without a phone, altimeters for elevation tracking, and thermometers for body temp insights. However, one potential advantage you get with the Garmin when it comes to keeping tabs on outdoor workouts is a comparably more capable multi-band GPS antenna; the Series 10 only has a single-band antenna. The advantage of more bands is better connectivity and, as a result, potentially more precise tracking, particularly in locations with obstructed skies. My bike ride took me around Seattle, Washington's Lake Union, which is located right smack in the middle of the city, with tall buildings, bridges, and more blocking the heavens. It also took me through a heavily wooded area. Did Garmin's fancier GPS result in better data? Scroll down to see the results of my 11-mile bike ride with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570. Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Apple Watch 10: Results As always, I ran Strava on an iPhone mounted to my handlebars as a control for this test. To avoid either device piggybacking location, elevation or speed data from the iPhone, I made sure to unpair both smartwatches before setting off. Apple Watch Series 10 Garmin Forerunner 570 Strava Distance 11.03 miles 11.09 miles 11.14 miles Elevation gain 647 feet 741 feet 663 feet Average speed (moving) 10.7 mph 11.7 mph 11.7 mph Max speed 20.7 mph 25.8 mph 25.8 mph Average heart rate 163 bpm 163 bpm n/a Max heart rate 178 bpm 179 bpm n/a Calories burned 615 calories 710 calories n/a Battery drain 16% 6% n/a All three tracking methods recorded similar total distances of just over 11 miles, with the Garmin being slightly closer to Strava's tally than the Apple Watch. Elevation data is an entirely different story. While the Series 10 was in the same general ballpark as Strava, Garmin seemingly way overcounted my climb for the ride. In fact, I shouldn't say seemingly. The Forerunner 570 did over-calculate my elevation gain. I know this because I take a similar ride frequently, almost always while running Strava or wearing a smartwatch. For example, in my last bike test with the Apple Watch 10 vs. Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 along nearly the same route (just without a little more flat-ground distance added), my elevation gain was 665 feet (according to Strava). The Garmin watch redeemed itself slightly with average moving pace data and max speed data that perfectly mirror Strava. The Apple Watch wasn't too far off with average speed data, but it calculated a noticeably slower max speed. This is similar to my results for the previous Apple Watch 10 bike test noted above. Both the Series 10 and Forerunner 570 clocked the same average heart rate and nearly the same max, though the Garmin measured slightly more total calories burned over the course of my one-hour-and-change bike ride. Finally, the Apple Watch Series 10 burned considerably more battery tracking my trek than the Garmin. Then again, the latest Apple Watch averaged between 18 and 24 hours per charge (when using GPS) and the Garmin watch averages three to four days per charge (again, without GPS). Garmin Forerunner 570 vs Apple Watch 10: And the winner is... If we're splitting hairs, the Garmin Forerunner 570 technically beats the Apple Watch Series 10 distance-wise, but the margin is less than one-tenth of a mile, hardly a decisive amount. With that in mind, and because of the Forerunner's vastly inflated elevation gain data — likely an anomaly as Garmin tends to be very good in this department — I'm officially crowning the Apple Watch Series 10 the winner of this head-to-head. Ultimately, I'd strongly recommend either of these snazzy-looking, capable, and overwhelmingly reliable wearables to help keep tabs on your physical fitness journey. (Keeping in mind that even the best smartwatches in the world occasionally have a data hiccup.) The real question is, do you prefer a hardcore sports training watch or something more well-rounded with smart features? Which smartwatches or fitness trackers should I test head-to-head next, and should I walk, bike, run, hike, or some other form of workout comparison? Let me know in the comments below. More from Tom's Guide: I test smartwatches for a living — and these are my 5 favorite models when I go hiking watchOS 26 tip: How to use Apple's new wrist flick gesture to dismiss notifications watchOS 26 hands-on: 5 cool new features to try on your Apple Watch right now
