Sunday Runday
In this weekly column, Android Central Wearables Editor Michael Hicks dives into the world of wearables, apps, and fitness tech as it relates to running and health, in his quest to get faster and fitter.
I’ve spent the past year gently criticizing Samsung for not taking fitness as seriously as its rivals. The Unpacked revelation that the Galaxy Watch 7 and Ultra had improved HR accuracy and dual-band GPS upped my hype for the watches to 11, but I had to test out the upgrades myself. Two days of running later, and I’m extremely optimistic!
My Galaxy Watch Ultra review unit arrived on a 102ºF Thursday afternoon, so my testing time was limited to the last two sweaty mornings (I’m writing this on a Saturday). I’ll do a more in-depth test in about a week and a half, but I wanted to get this out quickly for anyone considering pre-ordering a Watch 7 or Ultra.
There are four major upgrades from the Watch 6 to the Galaxy Watch 7 and Ultra: faster Exynos, double the storage, triple the LEDs in the bottom health sensors, and dual-band GPS. The first two are welcome but predictable for a yearly upgrade, while the value of the latter two is somewhat subjective. Are the old Watch 6 HR and GPS data good enough that you can hold off on upgrading, or are Wear OS athletes need the upgrade?
My Galaxy Watch Ultra fitness test
To test its accuracy, I wore the Galaxy Watch Ultra on my left wrist, the Garmin Forerunner 965 on my right wrist, and the COROS heart rate monitor on my arm while running, synced with the Garmin for more accurate heart rate results.
The Garmin watch was set to SatIQ mode, which starts in GPS-only to save battery but switches to dual-band mode if the signal is blocked. In theory, the Galaxy Watch Ultra sticks in dual-band mode by default, which should be more reliable.
Image 1 by 3
My first 5K run ended with both the Garmin and Samsung logging 3.11 miles with an average heart rate of 159 bpm. It was a great start, although the graph above shows a few heart rate differences where the Samsung either over- or under-estimated my effort, which evens out the balance. The GPS map shows that the Garmin (blue) stuck more to my path, while the Samsung (orange) drifted more into the street during the run.
Image 1 by 4
My second five-mile run ended with the Galaxy Watch Ultra tracking 5.04 miles and an average of 145 bpm. The Garmin Forerunner 965 measured 5.01 miles, and the COROS HRM measured 146 bpm.
In this test, the Galaxy Watch Ultra’s dual-band GPS map fared better than Garmin’s SatIQ map. On an out-and-back route, the Samsung stuck to the running path more consistently, while the Garmin wandered off it. And at one point early on, when I ran past some construction, the Samsung better captured the moment I stopped and turned to look for cars driving by.
As for heart rate, the Samsung largely matched the peaks and valleys of the HR monitor, but lagged slightly during rapid changes. This is fairly consistent for optical HR data on the wrist, so the Samsung is in good company. Aside from a few blips, the Ultra remained close in terms of accuracy.
Image 1 by 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 under max effort. In this instance, the Samsung measured 1,670m, while the exact distance was 1,640m; the Ultra’s average of 171 bpm was 6 bpm shy of the COROS HRM.
You’ll notice the heart rate issues right at the start of my run. I attribute it to taking my watch off for pre-run photos and not tightening it enough; it wobbled as I pumped my arms until I tightened it up for the first lap, and the readings improved (though not immediately). Still, the Galaxy Watch Ultra’s readings were off by about 5-8 bpm at various points before coming right back on target for the final lap.
The GPS map was a bit crazy but I haven’t found it yet each fitness watch that fits perfectly with my route during a running competition, so I wouldn’t attach too much value to it.
Overall, my GPS results were significantly better than my Galaxy Watch 6 fitness test results from last year. My heart rate results were better, but I want to do more anaerobic training to see if the issues with my track runs were a coincidence.
As an aside, the Samsung’s step counting was a little odd. It was almost accurate when I walked 1,000 steps while it was counting, but I suspect it misses some steps when you’re running. My cadence (steps per minute) was off by a few spm on every run, and my daily Ultra step count was about 100 steps fewer than the Forerunner 965 for every few thousand steps. Garmin watches have won several of my step counting tests, so I’m more confident in their data here.
Thoughts on training with the Galaxy Watch Ultra
The Galaxy Watch Ultra and Watch 7 feature the same dual-band GPS and improved HR LEDs, so you’ll get better fitness results than with the previous generation of Galaxy Watches no matter which one you choose.
Speaking specifically about the Galaxy Watch Ultra, I wrote earlier this week that I’m disappointed that the Ultra has an inactive crown. I love having a dedicated button for pausing and restarting workouts, but it just makes me annoyed when I have to swipe multiple times to change screens, even while I’m trying to wipe sweat from my fingers. It’s not a huge deal, but I’m hoping Samsung makes it a real crown on future Ultras.
Samsung sent me the thicker Ocean band, while I would have preferred the nylon Trail band to shed some weight and make the Ultra fit my wrist better. My arm has been trained to handle heavy fitness watches over the years, so I didn’t find the Galaxy Watch Ultra too heavy to wear; that said, those with smaller wrists will want to try one on first and see if they agree.
I love the jump to 3000 nits of brightness on the display. Just like my Apple Watch Ultra 2, colors remain vibrant and text readable in bright conditions.
Samsung told us the Galaxy Watch Ultra will last 16 hours under normal conditions with full GPS. I started my run with the Ultra on full charge, and it finished at 85% after two cumulative hours of running and automatically tracked walking. That would theoretically put the Ultra on pace to last 13 hours, which isn’t 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 ranks of the best fitness watches out there. Samsung still has a long way to go on the software front – I’d like to see training load or recommended workouts in future Wear OS updates – but in terms of hardware, it has the competition caught up.
Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra