I walked 6,500 steps with the Fitbit Charge 6 vs Pixel Watch 3 — and I'm surprised by the winner
The Fitbit Charge 6 was announced in 2023 and remains the brand's flagship band-style fitness tracker. The Pixel Watch 3, meanwhile, launched in 2024 and is Google's one and only smartwatch offering, though it comes in two sizes.
For this test, I pitted the smaller 41mm Pixel Watch 3 ($349) against the Fitbit Charge 6 ($159). With Google winding down the Fitbit brand, there's a good chance that the Charge 6 is the end of the road for perhaps the brand's most beloved wearable line.
So, is the Pixel Watch 3 a good replacement for the Charge 6, at least from a fitness tracking standpoint? There's only one way to find out. Let the test begin!
The Google Pixel Watch 3 is a full-featured smartwatch with all of Fitbit's best fitness tracking and wellness features built in. Though it's considerably more expensive than the Fitbit Charge 6, the Pixel Watch 3 has way more smart features, too. It also works with a gigantic range of third-party apps. The Charge 6 does not.
The Charge 6 could be one of the last devices to bear the Fitbit name. Launched in 2023, this high-end tracker sports a small AMOLED touchscreen and boasts impressive fitness-tracking chops. It also has better battery life than its modern smartwatch cousin and is lighter on the wrist. Did I mention it's also about half the cost of the Pixel Watch?
If you've read my previous walk test articles, you can probably go ahead and skip to the next section. For those new here, this is how these comparisons go down: With a smartwatch on either wrist, I begin tracking my walk. As a control, I manually count each step I take; my favorite Bose Quiet Comfort headphones help drown out the distraction.
To help me keep track of the total, I click an old-school manual tally counter every hundred steps before starting my tally over again at one. In this case, I repeated that process 65 times before finding a nice quiet park bench to settle down on and record the data.
Oh, and as an extra control, I recorded the walk using Strava on my trusty iPhone 12 Mini. Check out the results below:
Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
Fitbit Charge 6
Google Pixel Watch 3
Control
Step count
6,546 steps
6,653 steps
6,500 steps (manual count)
Distance
3.01 miles
3.4 miles
3.41 miles (Strava)
Elevation gain
no data
325 feet
303 feet (Strava)
Average pace
22 mins, 21 secs per mile
19 mins, 48 secs per mile
18 mins, 20 secs per mile
Average heart rate
114 bpm
114 bpm
n/a
Max heart rate
164 bpm
164 bpm
n/a
Calories burned
527 calories
529 calories
n/a
Device battery usage
+ 1%
- 9%
n/a
Well, well, well — look at which device was closer to my actual step count total by a whole seven steps; it's the Fitbit Charge 6. For what it's worth, both devices beat Strava's tally of 6,558 steps.
Unfortunately for the small but mighty Charge 6, things get a little funky when we move on to distance data. Despite nailing my step count total with impressive accuracy, the device appears to have severely undercounted my distance covered by a whopping 0.4 miles... that's not an insignificant difference.
The Fitbit Charge 6 frustratingly also does not report elevation gain data, even though it technically could using the onboard GPS. And while I didn't intend for this walk to be hilly, living in Seattle, Washington, a few hundred feet of elevation gain is par for the course when cruising around town on foot.
The Pixel Watch 3 does report climb data, which looks perhaps a tad inflated for this walk — I tend to trust Strava as the gold standard here — but still accurate enough for my needs.
Of course, had the Pixel Watch 3 undercounted my climb by 22 feet (compared to Strava), I might not be so forgiving.
Strava provides two pace metrics including an average moving pace — reported above — and an elapsed pace, which tends to be slower. In this case, my elapsed pace was 19 minutes and 15 seconds per mile, much closer to the Pixel Watch 3's metric.
Inflated pace data from the Fitbit Charge 6, meanwhile, makes sense given it measured a considerably shorter walk, distance-wise.
Nothing warms my heart more than two devices capturing similar heart rate data during these head-to-heads, and it doesn't get any more precise than this. The same goes for calories burned.
Finally, while the Pixel Watch 3 burned through 9% of its battery during my roughly one-hour-and-seven-minute walk, the Charge 6 somehow managed to gain 1% battery (from 98% when I left to 99% when I returned).
In today's battle of the Fitbit-powered Google wearables, the underdog Charge 6 comes out on top. However, even though the Fitbit Charge 6 managed a closer step count total to my manual count, the Pixel Watch 3 proved more accurate across the board.
Still, I'm impressed that the older, more affordable wearable was able to keep up with the newer and higher-end Pixel Watch 3. Ultimately, the Charge 6 remains one of the best fitness trackers for the money in 2025, especially if you like easy-wearing devices with great battery and onboard GPS so that you can leave your phone at home.
Which fitness trackers and/or smartwatches should I test head-to-head next? Let me know in the comments below.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
As Trump pushes Apple to make iPhones in the U.S., Google's brief effort building smartphones in Texas 12 years ago offers critical lessons
The executives were well aware of the difficulties they would face in manufacturing a smartphone in the U.S. As with any great tech industry moonshot, the challenge was part of the appeal—and they embraced it. 'Conventional wisdom said it wasn't possible,' the company crowed defiantly in a blog post announcing the new America-made smartphone. 'Experts said that costs are too high in the US; that the US has lost its manufacturing capability; and that the US labor force is too inflexible.' Soon, tens of thousands of shiny, new touchscreen phones began rolling off the assembly line at a plant in Fort Worth, Texas every day, and what seemed like a risky endeavor began to look like it could be a milestone—a bold bet on American manufacturing at a time when smartphone giant Apple relied on factories in China, home to cheap labor and legions of suppliers eager to produce electronic components. That was 2013. And the company behind the bet was Google, which had acquired legacy phone maker Motorola Mobility and was leveraging its modern tech prowess and vast resources to make the Moto X smartphone a success. Just a year later, it was all over. Google sold the Motorola phone business and pulled the plug on the U.S. manufacturing effort. It was the last time a major company tried to produce a U.S. made smartphone. The story of Google's short-lived on-shorting experiment has been largely forgotten, a footnote in the internet search giant's nearly three-decade history of business initiatives and projects. But Google's experience, particularly where it succeeded, where it discovered unexpected benefits, and where it stumbled, are newly relevant amid President Trump's campaign to pressure Apple, and other tech companies, to build their gadgets on U.S. soil. In just the past few weeks, the President has demanded that Apple reshore a big part of its iPhone production from Asia or face tariffs of at least 25%. The Google Motorola case study provides critical lessons about U.S. smartphone manufacturing that are still applicable today, as well as numerous intriguing what ifs. Was the project doomed by the economic realities of globalization, the competitive landscape in the smartphone business, or were Google's shifting corporate priorities ultimately to blame? Could more time, or more effective marketing, have made a difference? To piece together the history, Fortune spoke with five former Motorola employees who were directly involved in the company's U.S. assembly push, as well as numerous industry experts and analysts. 'We felt scrappy and felt we could carve out a niche for ourselves,' recalled Steve Mills, who was Motorola Mobility's chief information officer at the time and who is now chief operating officer at Foresite Cybersecurity. Many of the former Google insiders described starting the effort with high hopes but quickly realized that some of the assumptions they went in with were flawed and that, for all the focus on manufacturing, sales simply weren't strong enough to meet the company's ambitious goals laid out by leadership. The phone at the center of the plan, the Moto X, stood out from the pack not just because of where it would be produced. Motorola would offer consumers who purchased the phone directly on its website the option to customize the device, with dozens of colors and materials, eventually including bamboo and walnut backs, as well as special touches like personalized engraving. The company hoped that offering customized phones would give it an edge over rivals Apple and Samsung, which sold only standardized lineups. And the customization was well-suited to the on-shoring plan: By making phones in the U.S., Motorola would be able to deliver them to domestic customers within four days, instead of making them wait, while also saving on shipping costs. In its marketing, Motorola played up the device's pedigree as a patriotic alternative to the foreign-produced competition. The plant's opening celebration was such a big deal that then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry and billionaire Shark Tank investor Mark Cuban showed up. The factory in Fort Worth, about an hour's drive from Dallas, was operated by Flextronics, a contract manufacturer now known as Flex. To save on costs, workers at the plant handled only final assembly, using components that were imported from Asia. The cost of labor was of course higher than in China – workers were paid an hourly wage that was about three times more than in China, company executives said at the time. But it was an acceptable trade-off, given the other advantages. Dennis Woodside, who was then the CEO of Motorola Mobility, said in an interview at the time that the customized phones were being sold at a profit. In addition to the customized models, Motorola sold standardized versions of the Moto X to wireless carriers – an arrangement that helped ensure a base level of demand and production at the factory. While Apple does not produce customized versions of its iPhone, the company would likely face many of the same complications, plus new ones, if it quickly shifted iPhone manufacturing to the U.S. as Trump has called for. Higher labor costs are still a reality. And domestic suppliers are limited, with most based in China. As a result, Apple would have to raise iPhone prices astronomically—at least initially—to make a profit, experts said. Instead of $1,000, U.S.-made phones would have to retail for as much as $3,500, Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives estimated in a recent research note, concluding that Apple ever producing the devices domestically is a 'fairy tale.' Over the past six months, to reduce its exposure to Trump's tariffs, Apple has accelerated a years-long shift in its sourcing of iPhones. Rather than China, its main manufacturing hub and initially the target of Trump's highest import taxes, the company now ships most of its U.S.-bound phones from India, where tariffs are lower. How the trade war will ultimately play out is still in flux. Trump has delayed some of his import taxes and is still negotiating others. But his comments in May on conservative social network Truth Social show he opposes Apple's current workaround. In his message, he insisted Apple's iPhones 'must be built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else.' Apple CEO Tim Cook has described Asia as better for manufacturing than the U.S. The reason has nothing to do with the difference in wages, he insisted in an interview at a Fortune conference in 2017. China stopped being a low-cost labor destination years ago, according to Cook. Rather, the country's advantage is the far greater availability of skilled workers, such as the tooling engineers who create designs and molds for components, and who he praised for their precision. 'In the U.S., you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and I'm not sure we could fill the room,' Cook said on stage. 'In China you could fill multiple football fields.' In an effort to appease Trump, Apple this year promised to spend $500 billion in the U.S. over the next four years. Some of that money, the company said, will go to producing servers in Houston for its data centers. But Apple hasn't mentioned anything about bringing iPhone manufacturing back home to the U.S. When it came to the Moto X, Flextronics, from the outset, anticipated a shortage of skilled engineers in the U.S. To get around the problem, it drafted engineering talent from its factories across the globe, including from Hungary, Israel, Malaysia, Brazil, and China, and splurged on moving them to Fort Worth just to get the operation running as quickly as possible. 'We had to bring in a very cultural cast of characters,' said Mark Randall, who led Motorola's supply chain and operations. Rank and file assembly line workers, along with supervisors and managers, were easier to recruit locally because of the area's status as a telecom manufacturing corridor, he added. Of the nearly 3,800 staffing the facility at its peak, most didn't require intensive training. Production at the plant, equivalent in size to nearly eight football fields, started in the summer of 2013. The operation was in a former Nokia phone factory, in an industrial park designated as a foreign trade zone and with its own airport for cargo. The location meant that Motorola would pay lower tariffs on certain components it imported from Asia. The savings would only kick in, however, if the company decided to export some of the phones it produced there to other countries. Randall, who is now a supply chain consultant and startup board member, described Texas as a friendly home for manufacturing. In just one example of the warm welcome, the state gave Motorola a tax break for worker training, he said. Setting up the Moto X plant required installing a massive amount of equipment, including conveyor belts and other machinery. Some, like certain testing machines, were shipped from China. Workers wearing smocks and gloves to protect the electronics from dirt and lint stood at blue tables set in neat rows while they went through the many steps required to finish a phone. Computer screens glowed above each station. Fitting plastic parts, like the phone's back cover, tended to be done by hand. Robotics was used for adding components like touch screens and for testing certain parts during assembly to make sure they worked properly. As production ramped up, process engineers, who sometimes patrolled the assembly line with stopwatches, looked for bottlenecks and rejiggered the assembly line. Like with any plant, the effort to squeeze out more efficiency was a constant focus. As the first Motorola phone designed under Google, Moto X generated considerable buzz. The Android device, which was priced at $579 for the unlocked entry version, had a rounded backside and pioneering voice control feature. Users merely had to say 'Okay, Google now' to activate the feature, to set up reminders and get driving directions 'It was a cool sexy phone,' said Mills, the CIO. 'I got it for my kids.' The mobile network carriers were also excited by the Moto X, though at least partly for self-serving reasons, according to Randall, the supply chain guru. If the device sold well, it would provide the carriers more leverage over Apple in negotiating the wholesale prices they paid for future iPhones. But ultimately, critics gave the Moto X mixed reviews. While they praised the ability to customize the device and its overall design, they dinged it for having underwhelming storage in the basic model (16GB) and inferior screen quality compared to the competition. As the Fort Worth plant revved up, workers quickly started pumping out up to 100,000 phones weekly. Initially, the plant's staff was overwhelmed, forcing Motorola to briefly backtrack on its promise to deliver phones to customers within four days. But over time, the volume dipped considerably. In the first quarter of 2014, Motorola sold 900,000 Moto X handsets worldwide compared to Apple selling 26 million of its new iPhone 5s during the same period, according to Strategy Analytics. Five months after Moto X debuted, Motorola slashed its price to $399. After nine months, the factory was down to 700 workers, or less than one-fifth of what it had earlier. Within the first few weeks, Randall said it was clear to leadership that the Moto X was underperforming. The team had to ramp down production. While not a complete failure in terms of sales, the phone wasn't a huge success either. Employees said they expected future models to do better, after improving the phone's design. Many blamed a limited marketing budget compared to the big money that Samsung and Apple spent on print ads and TV commercials. Because Moto X was a brand new model, they argued it needed a splashier ad campaign to get the word out or a more convincing message. One of the company's big assumptions about the phone had turned out to be wrong. After betting big on U.S. assembly, and waving the red, white, and blue in its marketing, the company realized that most consumers didn't care where the phone was made. 'One of the learnings was that assembled in America wasn't resonating,' said Mark Rose, a senior director of product management with Motorola at the time who now coaches product managers as a consultant. Apple wouldn't necessarily face the same challenges as Motorola, if it opened a U.S. smartphone plant. Their vast difference in size could make a big difference. Because of sluggish demand, Motorola struggled to achieve the cost savings from making Moto X in huge numbers. Apple, on the other hand, with annual U.S. iPhone sales in the tens of millions, could more easily cash in on the economies of scale. For Motorola, the challenge it faced was compounded by its decision to let shoppers customize their phones when ordering them online. Fully assembling those devices ahead of time, which would have helped make the plant run more smoothly, was impossible. It also led to higher return rates, an expensive problem for any company, because customers were more likely to be disappointed with the color scheme they chose. Apple, with its standardized lineup, doesn't have the same worries. Thanks to its successful track record, Apple also has significant control and leverage over its suppliers to negotiate lower prices for its iPhone components. Motorola, with its back-in-the-pack position and the uncertainty about whether its new Moto X phone would be a hit, had little sway in comparison. Meanwhile, Motorola, along with most other Android phone makers, operate in an environment of intense competition that translates into low profit margins. Any extra costs, such as is the case with U.S. manufacturing from higher wages, can be financially painful. Apple's iPhone, however, is a premium product that sells at a high margin. As a result, the company could more easily absorb the additional expense of producing it in the U.S. Ultimately, Google's changing priorities played a major role in its decision in January 2014 to sell Motorola to China-based Lenovo for $2.9 billion. A few months later, with the sale of the phone maker still pending, Google announced it would shut down its Moto X assembly line in Fort Worth and shift production entirely to China and Brazil, where production costs were lower. Instead of trying to compete with Apple, Motorola, under Lenovo, would focus on making cheaper phones aimed at customers in developing countries. 'What we found was that the North American market was exceptionally tough,' Motorola president Rick Osterloh told the Wall Street Journal after announcing that the Fort Worth plant would close. Selling would eliminate another problem for Google: Griping by phone makers that used Android software in their devices. They complained that Google, after buying Motorola, competed directly against them. Google had to take the rebellion seriously. If those partners bailed on Android, it would be a huge blow to Google because it would make it more difficult for handset users to access its services. Another factor in the sale was Google's rationale for acquiring Motorola in the first place. In addition to buying a phone business, Google had gotten Motorola's huge patent portfolio that it hoped would help it fend off a growing number of lawsuits over Android. Apple, Microsoft, and other competitors had targeted Google and its phone making partners with claims that the operating system infringed on their intellectual property. In selling Motorola to Lenovo, Google kept most of the patents, tacitly acknowledging that they were more valuable to it than a handset business with disappointing sales. In the end, Motorola's failed U.S. adventure had little to do with where the Moto X was assembled, by all accounts. The phone simply didn't sell well enough to justify a U.S. assembly line. 'If it had sold better off the jump, the whole story would have been different,' said Gabe Madway, who worked in Motorola's public relations at the time and is now at online investment management service Wealthsimple. Randall, meanwhile, put it even more bluntly, saying the phone's failure 'had very much zero' to do with U.S. manufacturing and everything to do with the iPhone being a better device with bigger brand recognition than the Moto X. Of course, a lot has changed in 12 years that could make or break a new U.S. manufacturing push by a company like Apple. Factory automation, for example, has greatly improved, opening the door to more cost savings in any U.S. smartphone factory now compared to before. But some things haven't changed. Adding thousands of workers on short notice to speed up production of a device getting more sales than anticipated would be next to impossible to do in the U.S. In China, it's routine. 'If there was a ramp that went super well, the ability to flex that workforce is insane' Randall said about China. 'The ability to scale down that work workforce is insane.' Also, there are relatively few U.S.-based suppliers that could produce enough electronic components for millions of phones. And expanding the pool would likely take years. Meanwhile, importing parts, the obvious alternative, may be prohibitively expensive if Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, proposed in April, fully kick in. It doesn't help that the president frequently changes his mind about the levies, making it difficult for companies to plan ahead for big investments like phone assembly plants. Mills, the former Motorola CIO, said Trump giving phone makers like Apple some wiggle room would make it easier for them to set up U.S. manufacturing. Instead of producing their phones entirely in the U.S, they could avoid tariffs by doing merely final assembly domestically, like Motorola tried. 'A big thing comes down to what Trump means by Made in America,' said Mills. Another idea is for Apple to set up a small operation domestically to produce a 'prestige or limited edition' iPhone, said Ross Rubin, an analyst with Reticle Research. It could charge a premium for the device, say $2,000, he said, and let Trump declare victory, letting Apple avoid the much more expensive alternative to onshoring a huge chunk of its iPhone production. What is clear is this: Motorola's Made in America experiment lasted just over a year, and in more than a decade since, no other major smartphone maker has dared to try something similar again. This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Google faces EU antitrust complaint over AI Overviews
A group known as the Independent Publishers Alliance has filed an antitrust complaint with the European Commission over Google's AI Overviews, according to Reuters. The complaint accuses Google of 'misusing web content for Google's AI Overviews in Google Search, which have caused, and continue to cause, significant harm to publishers, including news publishers in the form of traffic, readership and revenue loss.' It also says that unless they're willing to disappear from Google search results entirely, publishers 'do not have the option to opt out' of their material being used in AI summaries. It's been a little over a year since Google began adding AI-generated summaries at the top of some web search results, and despite some early answers that were spectacularly off-base, the feature continues to expand, to the point where it's reportedly causing major traffic declines for news publishers. Google told Reuters that 'new AI experiences in Search enable people to ask even more questions, which creates new opportunities for content and businesses to be discovered.' The company also argued that claims about web traffic are often based on incomplete data, and that 'sites can gain and lose traffic for a variety of reasons.' Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Time Business News
9 hours ago
- Time Business News
Best Site to Buy Verify Gmail Pva Accounts with App Password
Introduction In the ever-evolving world of digital marketing and online business, the need for reliable, secure, and verified Gmail accounts has never been greater. As tools become more advanced and Google enforces tighter security protocols, having access to verified Gmail PVA (Phone Verified Accounts) with App Passwords is essential for smooth email automation, outreach campaigns, and platform integrations. Whether you're running an SEO agency, cold email operation, affiliate marketing network, or managing multiple social platforms — these Gmail accounts help you avoid restrictions, spam traps, and lockouts. But not all Gmail sellers are equal. The key lies in finding the best site to buy verified Gmail PVA accounts with app password access. This comprehensive 2025 guide walks you through everything: what Gmail PVA accounts are, why app password support matters, benefits of verified Gmail, and — most importantly — where to buy them safely and securely online. What Are Gmail PVA Accounts? Gmail PVA Phone Verified Accounts are Gmail accounts created and verified using a real phone number. This makes them more authentic in Google's eyes and improves their reputation score. These accounts are less likely to be flagged, banned, or blocked when used in marketing or automation tasks. ✅ Key Features: Real phone verification Better sending limits Lower suspension rate Option to enable 2-Step Verification Eligible for App Password usage What Is an App Password and Why Do You Need It? An App Password is a 16-digit security code generated by Google to allow third-party applications or platforms (like CRM tools, email software, or bots) to access your Gmail securely — even if you have 2-Step Verification enabled. 📌 Example Use Cases: Connecting Gmail to Mailshake , SendGrid , or Gmass , , or Automating outreach using Lemlist , Woodpecker , or Zapier , , or Logging in through apps that don't support 2FA Without an app password, many platforms won't accept your Gmail credentials, especially if 2FA is turned on. Why Buy Verified Gmail PVA Accounts with App Password in 2025? Let's face it — creating and verifying multiple Gmail accounts manually is time-consuming and risky, especially with Google tightening its detection systems. Buying Gmail accounts from trusted sites that offer: Phone verification App password compatibility Recovery options Clean IP history …saves time, avoids bans, and ensures seamless marketing operations. Top Benefits of Verified Gmail PVA Accounts With App Password ✅ 1. High Deliverability Rates Your emails are more likely to land in the inbox — not the spam folder. ✅ 2. Access to 3rd-Party Tools Connect Gmail with tools like Mailshake, Jarvee, or Lemlist through app passwords. ✅ 3. Safe for Cold Outreach Aged, verified accounts reduce bounce rates and improve open rates. ✅ 4. Prevent Suspensions Verified phone numbers and proper security settings lower the chance of account lockout. ✅ 5. Supports Multi-Account Usage Manage several Gmail accounts securely across platforms without getting flagged. Criteria for Choosing the Best Site to Buy Gmail PVA Accounts Buying Gmail accounts is not just about the price — it's about quality, support, and longevity. Here's what separates a good seller from a bad one: 🔍 1. Verified Reviews Sites with real user feedback are more trustworthy. 🔍 2. Detailed Account Info Each account should include: Gmail address Password App password access enabled Recovery phone/email Creation location (IP/region) 🔍 3. Replacement Policy Trusted sellers offer 24–72 hour replacements for defective accounts. 🔍 4. Age of Account Older Gmail accounts (6 months to 3+ years) are more stable. 🔍 5. Support Team You should be able to contact someone for help — via chat, email, or ticket system. Best Sites to Buy Verified Gmail PVA Accounts with App Password (2025 List) Here's a list of top-rated platforms where you can securely buy these Gmail accounts: 1. ✅ Trusted by marketers since 2013 This site is dedicated to aged and verified accounts for Gmail, Facebook, YouTube, and more. ⭐ Features: Offers aged Gmail (6 months – 5+ years) Full account details Optional 2FA and app password enabled accounts Bulk delivery support 💰 Pricing: From $2.50 to $15.00 per account depending on age and verification level 🛡️ Replacement Policy: 24 hours 🧾 Payment Methods: Crypto, Payeer, WebMoney 2. ✅ A popular bulk PVA provider Great for buying Gmail accounts with phone verification and app password support. ⭐ Features: Country-specific accounts (US, UK, India, etc.) Manual or automated creation options App password supported accounts Discounts on bulk orders 💰 Pricing: $3 – $10 per account 🛡️ Replacement Policy: Free within 48 hours of delivery 3. ✅ Well-known for delivering ready-to-use Gmail accounts If you're looking for reliability, quick delivery, and varied Gmail account options — this site is for you. ⭐ Features: New, aged, and custom Gmail accounts Detailed account list in Excel format App password–enabled Gmail PVAs Fast delivery via email or dashboard 💰 Pricing: Starts at $2.99 per account 🧾 Payment Methods: PayPal, Bitcoin, Card 4. ✅ Freelancer-based platform with strong buyer protection Fiverr allows you to browse through dozens of sellers offering Gmail PVA accounts. ⭐ Features: Safe transaction via Fiverr Read ratings and reviews before buying Custom account creation available 💰 Pricing: $5 – $20 for packs (often includes 5–20 accounts) ⚠️ Tip: Check for sellers who mention 'App Password Support' or offer 2FA-enabled accounts 5. ✅ A digital marketplace known for affordable accounts This site is packed with sellers who offer Gmail PVAs, often with app password options. ⭐ Features: Bulk Gmail accounts (10, 50, 100+) Sellers from around the world Private delivery links for safety 💰 Pricing: Starts at $0.50 per Gmail, app password versions at $3+ ⚠️ Tip: Stick with Level 2 or 3 sellers with 95%+ positive feedback 6. BlackHatWorld Marketplace (BHW) ✅ The underground favorite of SEO professionals BHW features a trusted forum marketplace with vetted sellers offering aged Gmail PVA accounts. ⭐ Features: Real-time user reviews and feedback Vetted sellers with 1000s of orders Custom Gmail account creation with app password access 💰 Pricing: $4 – $15 depending on features ⚠️ Tip: You may need to contact sellers directly via forum inbox. Best Practices After Buying Gmail PVA Accounts You now own verified Gmail PVA accounts with app password support — what next? 🛡️ 1. Login Using Safe IPs Use residential proxies or mobile IPs to avoid triggering Google's security alerts. 🌱 2. Warm-Up the Accounts Start by: Sending 5–10 emails/day Reading emails Connecting to YouTube or Drive 🔐 3. Add Your Own Recovery Info Update the recovery phone or email for added protection. 🧰 4. Use App Password for Tools Don't share your primary Gmail password. Generate app passwords for: Lemlist Gmass Zapier SendGrid Jarvee Mistakes to Avoid When Buying Gmail Accounts Even experienced buyers sometimes make these costly mistakes: ❌ Buying from unverified or unreviewed websites ❌ Ignoring replacement/refund policies ❌ Not asking for samples or test logins ❌ Using flagged IPs or VPNs to login ❌ Skipping account warm-up process Legal and Ethical Use of Gmail Accounts While using Gmail PVAs is legal, how you use them determines whether your actions are ethical and compliant. ✔️ Allowed Uses: Cold email outreach Managing social campaigns Testing apps or integrations Influencer marketing ❌ Avoid: Spamming Phishing/scams Automated mass emailing via fake sender names Account farming for black-hat purposes Conclusion The rise of automation, digital marketing, and stricter Google policies in 2025 means that verified Gmail PVA accounts with app password support are not just helpful — they're essential. To make the most of your campaigns, integrations, and outreach efforts, buy only from trusted sources like: AccsMarket Pvamart BulkAccs Fiverr SEOClerks BlackHatWorld These platforms provide secure, high-quality, app-password-enabled Gmail accounts with replacement guarantees, fast delivery, and full support. Always follow best practices, avoid abuse, and maintain your accounts properly to ensure long-term usage and results. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
