I biked 13 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 — and there's a clear winner
Of course, this is far from the first time I've tested one of the best Samsung smartwatches against one of the best Apple Watch models. A few weeks ago, I biked along a similar route with the Apple Watch 10 vs. Galaxy Watch 8 Classic. In that showdown, Samsung came out on top.
However, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is a higher-end model than the Series 10. Will this make it more competitive against the lasted Galaxy Watch? There's only one way to find out!
The Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 comes in three varieties, and the Classic is the highest-end model, boasting a rotating bezel, extra customizable Action Button, and up to 40 hours of battery per charge in our testing. You also get Google's excellent Gemini AI assistance built in.
The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is Cupertino's toughest-built and longest-lasting smartwatch with 100 meters of water resistance (making it suitable for scuba diving), and 36 hours of battery per charge (72 hours in low power mode). It also sports a large, bright, and crisp display and tons of smart features, safety tools, and health apps.
But first, how do the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Galaxy Watch 8 Classic stack up feature-wise and price-wise? The former debuted in 2023, almost two years ago, and costs $799. It represents Apple's top-of-the-line model with 100 meters of water resistance, a bigger battery, and more sophisticated location tracking than the Apple Watch Series 10.
The Galaxy Watch 8 Classic launched this summer, 2025. With a cost of $499, it's the priciest model in the Galaxy Watch 8 series, and the only model with a rotating bezel and programmable Action Button.
The Galaxy Watch 8 Classic sits below the more rugged Galaxy Watch Ultra, which is a more direct competitor to the Apple Watch Ultra 2. Notably, when I biked 13 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Galaxy Watch Ultra, the results were a draw. Will that be the case this time around?
When it comes to onboard health and location tracking tech, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Galaxy Watch 8 Classic are very evenly matched. Each device has its respective brand's latest/greatest holistic sensor array, multi-band GPS, and altimeters for elevation tracking. Size and heft-wise, the devices are also quite similar.
Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
The Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Classic each wear fairly large on the wrist. The Apple Watch is taller, 49mm versus 46mm, and the Galaxy Watch is wider, 46mm versus 43mm.
They're similarly heavy, too. The Watch 8 Classic weighs in at 62.5 g (case only) and the Ultra 2 weighs in at 61.9 g (case only).
Even in the summertime, I tend to wear gloves while cycling, and this ride was no exception. Unfortunately, due to the size of these devices, this meant constant worrying about the glove material accidentally bumping a button, potentially messing up the results of the comparison. Fortunately, that didn't occur.
Displays on either watch max out at 3,000 nits, making them each easily viewable in direct sunlight, as was the case during this test. Battery life is also pretty similar. In our testing, the Ultra 2 cruised for 36 hours per charge, and the Galaxy Watch 8 Classic lasted for an average of 40 hours per charge.
With so much in common, you're no doubt wondering which one claims victory in this showdown of the Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Galaxy Watch 8 Classic. Read on to find out.
As always, for this bike test, I ran Strava on my iPhone 12 mini mounted to the handlebars of my bike. Neither watch was paired with a smartphone for the duration of the test to avoid any piggybacking off of location, elevation, speed or pace data.
Apple Watch Ultra 2
Samsung Galaxy Watch 8
Strava
Distance
13.20 miles
13.26 miles
13.30 miles
Elevation gain
726 feet
774 feet
781 feet
Average speed (moving)
10.5 mph
11.7 mph
11.7 mph
Max speed
18.2 mph
29.5 mph
29.4 mph
Average heart rate
164 bpm
165 bpm
n/a
Max heart rate
179 bpm
182 bpm
n/a
Calories burned
762 calories
748 calories
n/a
Battery drain
9%
10%
n/a
The best Apple Watch models seem to consistently churn out lower-than-expected speed data.
All three tracking methods measured just about the same distance covered, with the Galaxy Watch 8 ever so slightly closer to Strava's calculation. Samsung also measured just about the same amount of elevation gain for my roughly 75-minute ride. Apple, meanwhile, likely undercounted by 50-plus feet.
Both Strava and the Galaxy Watch 8 noted the same average moving speed of 11.7 mph and nearly the same maximum speed of around 29.5 mph.
Apple's average speed of 10.5 mph isn't too far off from the others, but Apple's max speed is considerably less. In fact, from my testing while biking, the best Apple Watch models seem to consistently churn out lower-than-expected speed data.
For example, when I tested the Apple Watch 10 vs. Garmin Forerunner 570, the former's speed data seemed to undersell my ride. The same occurred when I biked 12 miles with the Apple Watch 10 vs. Samsung Galaxy Watch 8.
That said, heart rate data and calories burned line up pretty nicely between the Apple Watch and the Samsung device. The Galaxy Watch 8 Classic noted a slightly harder workout, in terms of cardio, despite measuring slightly fewer calories burned.
To view my tracking results in real-time at a glance during the ride, I left the always-on display option on for both watches. The result was a similar level of battery drain.
With more accurate distance, elevation, maximum, and average speed data, in this fitness tracking accuracy battle between the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 Classic and Apple Watch Ultra 2, Samsung is the victor.
As always, take these results with a grain of salt, because ultimately, either device is a great choice to track your daily/weekly workouts and keep tabs on things like sleep quality, heart health, and more.
Which smartwatches or fitness trackers should I test next in a head-to-head competition? And what workout should I do? Let me know in the comments below.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Tom's Guide
28 minutes ago
- Tom's Guide
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE review: Not like this
The Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE has faded into the background compared to the much-upgraded Galaxy Z Flip 7, and the giant step forward for Samsung that was the Galaxy Z Fold 7. But as Samsung's cheapest folding phone to date, it shouldn't be ignored. I've been wanting a cheaper foldable from Samsung for years at this point, and I'm glad one has finally arrived. What I'm less happy about is Samsung's decision to use the Galaxy Z Flip 6 as a base, as that leads to a number of consequences for the quality of the new phone's features, and not all of them good. But with the Galaxy Z Flip 7 still starting at more than $1,000, and the standard Motorola Razr (2025) basically the only other choice at this price, the Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE is still worth considering. It's a way of getting a foldable phone while still spending around the same amount of money as you would for a non-folding flagship phone. Just make sure you read through our testing results and my thoughts on this phone before you make any big decisions. While the Galaxy Z Flip series has never been as expensive as the Galaxy Z Fold, its $1,000 price tag could never really be called approachable. Starting at $899/£849/AU$1,499, the Z Flip 7 FE is on par with a Galaxy S25 or iPhone 16, making your buying decision a little easier. I still wish the Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE price had gone lower, though. Samsung could have blown the foldables market wide open with a $600/700 model, making this technology affordable to even more potential users. Instead, the £200/$200/AU$300 difference between this phone and the more premium Flip is kind of small. What's worse is that the gap shrinks to $150/£140/AU$200 if you go for the Z Flip 7 FE's 256GB storage version (costing $959/£909/AU$1,599) to match the Z Flip 7's default capacity. Maybe 128GB is enough for your needs, but for future-proofing purposes, more on-board storage is my preference. Both of Samsung's latest flip foldables use the same combination of 50MP main, 12MP ultrawide and 10MP selfie cameras, identical right down to the sensors, lenses and available formats. But when you compare the photos from these phones side-by-side, there are still some differences. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. For instance, this main camera shot of a field and footpath has ended up brighter on the FE for some reason. It's the same in a different image across the Welsh countryside below too. Presumably there's some difference in how the two different chips in the Z Flip 7 and Z Flip 7 FE process their shots. Because with identical camera hardware and software, there's not much else that could cause this disparity. This shot of a bridge over a stream was taken at 50MP on both phones, rather than the default 12MP. Here we see the regular Z Flip 7 pull ahead as it's brighter without losing detail. At 2x zoom, pointing the phones down this path, we see the Z Flip 7 FE's shot is brighter again but loses color as a result. Both are still detailed though, using the 50MP sensor as a substitute for a proper telephoto camera. We now move to the ultrawide camera, the other main sensor on both the Z Flip 7 FE and Z Flip 7. This egg box looks more saturated in color in the Z Flip 7 FE image, which is beneficial given the dark wood the box is made from. It's the first of these images where I think the Z Flip 7 FE outright beats its more expensive sibling. Finally, we have a portrait mode selfie. The Z Flip 7 has given us the more saturated shot, but at the expense of texture detail in my skin and my shirt. The Z Flip 7 FE's portrait effect is much stronger for some reason, but has also blurred part of my glasses by accident. Many of Samsung's latest features are available here on the Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE since it's running One UI 8, just like Samsung's other new foldables. That includes all the abilities built into Google Gemini, which works alongside Samsung's own Bixby assistant. Together, the two digital helpers are ready to answer questions, provide summaries, adjust your settings or enable Now Bar and Now Brief, available on both the inner and outer Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE screens for quickly referencing your daily schedule. For creative purposes, you can make generative edits and fixes to your images, or try the newly upgraded Audio Eraser to clean up the sound in your videos. Unfortunately, there is no DeX mode available here, despite Samsung having added support to the Galaxy Z Flip 7 for the first time. Not everyone cares about having a desktop mode built into their phone, but it can certainly be handy with the right accessories. Like Samsung's other recent flagship phones, the Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE is promised to get seven years of Android updates and security patches. Even though the Z Flip 7 FE's hardware isn't as new as the other two foldables Samsung launched this year, its software will always be on par. And what's more, that's more than twice as long as the three years of support you get with the Razr 2025. Presumably as part of its cost-cutting strategy for the Z Flip 7 FE, Samsung gave its new cheaper foldable an Exynos 2400 chipset. This is a flagship-grade chip from the previous year, and a step behind both Samsung's latest, 3-nanometer Exynos 2500 used in the regular Z Flip 7 and the Snapdragon 8 Elite chip used in the Z Fold 7 and most flagship Android phones this year. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 Motorola Razr (2025) Chipset Exynos 2400 Exynos 2500 Dimensity 7400X Geekbench 6 score (single-core / multi-core) 2044 / 6761 2286 / 8079 1089 / 3075 3DMark Wild Life Extreme Unlimited (score / fps) 3042 / 18.2 4325 / 25.9 1021 / 6.1 Adobe Premiere Rush time to transcode (mins:secs) 1:15 1:04 1:21 The Exynos 2400 does outperform the Motorola Razr's Dimensity 7400X chip on all key fronts, but lags behind the newer Exynos 2500, especially on the GPU front. But outside the lab, the Z Flip 7 FE runs into a problem — heat and performance throttling. There is a massive gap between the Z Flip 7 FE's full potential and what you get after a few minutes of activity. Playing Ex Astris at max graphics settings, the Z Fold 7 FE struggles to keep up at maximum graphics settings. This is a game that runs perfectly on a Snapdragon 8 Elite chipset, but the Exynos 2400 struggles to keep a high, consistent frame rate. Similar to the chip downgrade, the Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE uses 8GB of RAM, instead of 12GB like Samsung's other foldables. Its available storage capacities are either 128GB or 256GB, a step down from the 256GB/512GB offered on the Z Flip 7. The Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE inherits the Galaxy Z Flip 6's oddly-shaped 3.4-inch, 60Hz cover display. The folder-shaped cutout works fine, but it's not as exciting or useful as the full top half of the phone being a 120Hz 4.1-inch display, as it is on the Z Flip 7. Equally, given Samsung is reluctant to give users proper access to apps on the outer screen, you don't miss out on too much compared to the more expensive flip foldable. That said, it's questionable if the extra space on the Z Flip 7 really makes a difference. Both of Samsung's new flip foldables are still focused on using widgets on the cover screen, rather than normal apps like its main rival, the Moto Razr 2025. It means the inner display is still where you'll spend the vast majority of your time, even if you can check notifications or appointments, alter quick settings or even take photos with the phone folded (at least without additional modifying apps downloaded). The whole Z Flip 7 FE feels unfortunately dated, even if it's a brand new phone based on a one-year-old design. Such is the leap Samsung made with the Galaxy Z Flip 7. I didn't notice how the inner screen of the Z Flip 7 FE is a smaller 6.7-inch panel rather than 6.9 inches as you get on the Z Flip 7, but I did notice the bezels being way thicker and more obtrusive on the FE. There is definitely a difference in the depth of the crease in the display too, but not one that spoils the experience on the FE. The most noticeable physical difference is the hinge. The Z Flip 7 FE's mechanism is way stiffer than the Z Flip 7, despite both phones having smooth folding actions, and being capable of holding their position at any point between open and closed. Samsung wasn't kidding about the advancements it made to the Z Fold 7's mechanism, but it's hard to understand without comparing it directly to what the old hinge feels like. On the brighter side, the Galaxy Z Fold 7 FE is actually a touch lighter than the Z Flip 7. The FE also has the same water and dust resistance rating (IP) as the Z Flip 7, the same Gorilla Glass Victus 2 protecting the back and cover display and the same Armor Aluminum frame. None of these will hopefully ever matter to you, but if there's ever an accidental drop or immersion, you'll be grateful for the durability. It's slightly disappointing that you only have black and white colors to choose from on the Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE. The Z Flip 7 comes in black, blue and red (plus an online-exclusive mint green), which give users the option of a more exciting color if they want. Our lab testing of the Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE's display revealed it has one advantage over its rivals — a higher peak brightness. It's behind on color gamut coverage though, although at least it has similar color accuracy to the regular Z Flip 7. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7 Motorola Razr (2025) Peak brightness (nits) 2105 1989 1916 sRGB color gamut volume (%) 141.3 151.7 207.3 DCI-P3 color gamut volume (%) 100.1 107.4 146.8 Color accuracy (∆E, lower is better) 0.24 0.23 0.34 The Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE features the same battery capacity as previous Z Flip models: 4,000 mAh. Meanwhile, you get an upgraded 4,300 mAh cell in the standard Z Flip 7. Between that capacity difference and the power efficiency of the two different chips, it's no surprise that we found a big battery life gap in our testing. In our test, which sets phones to constantly open different sites on a web browser over cellular data until the battery gives out, it took 9 hours and 12 minutes at regular adaptive refresh rate mode for the Z Flip 7 FE to give up, below the average phone's result by more than an hour. The Z Flip 7 managed 12 hours and 24 minutes. And the Razr 2025 does even better, lasting 13 hours and 36 minutes. Charging is again a choice of 25W wired or 15W wireless, something that the regular Galaxy Z Flip 7 doesn't change either. A drained Z Flip 7 FE fills reaches 56% capacity after 30 minutes, at least making it a bit faster to power up than its rivals. The Razr 2025 makes it to 42% on the same charger, and the Z Flip 7 to 55% I fully swapped to the Galaxy Z Flip 7 after I finished testing the FE, and it's confusing to think that both of these phones came out at the same time. The regular Z Flip 7 is a brilliant device, and deservedly sits at the top of our best foldable phones guide. But whether the Z Flip 7 FE deserves similar praise is not so clear. If the Z Flip 7 FE was cheaper, or shared more of the Z Flip 7's upgrades, this would be an easy phone to recommend for foldable-curious users wanting to eke the most out of their phone-buying budget. But the phone we have is lower-powered, a lot less power efficient and uses outdated design elements, while dropping the cost by less than a fifth — not much of a discount considering what you lose out on. The ideal user for the Galaxy Z Flip 7 FE is someone craving the futuristic and convenient form-factor of a flip foldable, but also, counterintuitively, doesn't mind getting lesser and older hardware in its place. The software and camera experience is on par with the full-fat Galaxy Z Flip 7, so you don't have to worry about missing out on updates or image quality compared to the more expensive Samsung flip phone. But you'll have to accept you could have get more camera, performance and battery life potential for your money by settling for a non-folding flagship phone.
Android Authority
28 minutes ago
- Android Authority
Chrome isn't for sale, but Perplexity just offered $34.5 billion anyway
Edgar Cervantes / Android Authority TL;DR Perplexity AI has made a $34.5 billion cash offer for Google's Chrome browser. Google isn't selling Chrome and is appealing a court ruling that could one day force its sale. Perplexity says it has funding lined up and would keep Chrome open source with no search engine changes. Google might be forced to sell its Chrome browser in the future, thanks to a US court ruling that found it held an unlawful monopoly in online search. But while the case is still crawling through appeals, Perplexity is making an ambitious bid to swoop in early to buy it. 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. As reported by Reuters, Perplexity AI has tabled an unsolicited $34.5 billion cash offer to Google for Chrome, despite the fact that it isn't actually for sale yet. The three-year-old company is worth less than half that itself, but says it has unnamed backers ready to cover the cost. CEO Aravind Srinivas has a taste for headline-making bids. Earlier this year, he offered to merge with TikTok's US arm to help solve Washington's concerns about Chinese ownership. Perplexity's pitch includes keeping Chrome's underlying code open source, investing $3 billion over two years, and leaving its default search engine untouched. The startup argues this would preserve user choice and avoid future antitrust headaches. It's a bold target. Chrome has over three billion users and is central to Google's AI search push, making it unlikely the company would let it go until its legal avenues are completely exhausted. Analysts think that the fight could drag on for years, even if a court eventually orders a sale. Still, the fact that Perplexity — and reportedly OpenAI, Yahoo, and Apollo Global Management — are circling Chrome shows just how valuable the browser has become in the AI race. Follow
UPI
29 minutes ago
- UPI
AI startup Perplexity offers to buy Google Chrome for $34.5B
San Francisco-based AI startup Perplexity offered to buy Google Chrome in a deal for tens of billions of dollars after it was valued at around $18 billion last month but gave a $34.5 billion unsolicited offer. File Photo (2018) by Sascha Steinbach/EPA Aug. 12 (UPI) -- AI startup Perplexity has offered to buy Google Chrome in a deal for tens of billions of dollars. The San Francisco-based artificial intelligence software company in July was valued at about $18 billion. The company made a $34.5 billion unsolicited offer to buyout Google's Chrome browser, The Wall Street Journal first reported. In addition, Perplexity said it would commit to keeping Google's open-source Chromium project. The Google Chrome browser, which launched in 2008, has a reported valuation of anywhere between $20 billion to $50 billion. Perplexity said multiple investors have agreed to back the deal despite its current valuation as it battles for supremacy in the AI marketplace with bigger names such as OpenAI and Mark Zuckerberg's Meta, which approached the company this year about its own potential acquisition of Perplexity. The AI-powered search engine Perplexity launched its AI-powered browser Comet last month. The unsolicited offer comes after the U.S. Department of Justice had suggested Google divest itself of Chrome stemming from the antitrust lawsuit Google lost in 2024 that said it violated U.S. antitrust law as a monopoly in search and text advertising. But Google officials have yet to reveal how the search engine giant plans to adjust. Google did not immediately reply to UPI's request for comment.
