Latest news with #AppleWatchUltra2
Tom's Guide
6 days ago
- Tom's Guide
Garmin Forerunner 970 vs Apple Watch Ultra 2 — which should you buy?
So you're looking to upgrade your running watch, and you're trying to decide between the new Garmin Forerunner 970 and the Apple Watch Ultra 2. The Forerunner 970 is Garmin's top-tier Forerunner model, packed with advanced training features, and brand new on the market. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is Apple's endurance smartwatch. To help you decide which is best for you, I've put the two watches head to head below. Before I jump into the comparison, it's worth stating the obvious — if you're an Android user, this decision is a simple one. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 won't work with anything other than an iPhone, so the best watch for you is the Garmin Forerunner 970, which is compatible with iOS and Android through the Garmin Connect app. If you'd prefer to read the reviews before deciding, check out the Garmin Forerunner 970 review and the Apple Watch Ultra 2 review on Tom's Guide . The Garmin Forerunner 970 is the newer of the two watches, and it's more expensive than its predecessor, the Forerunner 965. The Garmin Forerunner 970 costs $749.99 / £629.99, a considerable jump from the Garmin Forerunner 965, which is $599 / £599 and often reduced to under $500. When considering the price of the Forerunner 970, it's worth factoring in that some of its new features also require the Garmin HRM600 chest strap, which is $169.99 / £149.99 The Apple Watch Ultra 2 was released in September 2023. It costs $799/ £849, but is often discounted to closer to $700 in sales. It's a singular model, outfitted with cellular support. Winner: Apple Watch Ultra 2 — At full price, the Garmin watch is cheaper, but as the Ultra 2 has been around for a lot longer, you're likely to be able to pick it up for less than the cost of the Garmin Forerunner 970 right now. The Garmin Forerunner 970 is available now, and currently on sale on Amazon for $749. It offers an upgraded design over the Forerunner 965, and our testing found its tracking to be reliable and its training insights to be detailed. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is currently on sale on Amazon for $729. It features a brighter display than the original Ultra and adds support for double-tap features. The Garmin Forerunner 970 still looks very much like a Garmin — the watch is controlled via five different physical buttons, three on the left, two on the right, with a round 1.4-inch AMOLED screen. You can use the touchscreen to navigate around the watch, but it's automatically disabled in sports modes. Compared to the older model, the Forerunner 970 is harder wearing — it has a sapphire crystal display, which is more scratch-resistant than the Gorilla glass used on the Forerunner 965 and other Forerunner models. Other notable design features for the Forerunner 970 include a flashlight — until now that's feature's been reserved for Garmin's more expensive models. It also has Garmin's new Elevate v5 optical heart rate sensor, which is an upgrade on the v4 sensor on the Forerunner 965 and can be used to take ECG measurements. There's also a built-in microphone and speaker, allowing you to answer and make calls from your wrist. The watch only comes in one size, and is available in three different colors — black, white, and grey/gold. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 looks pretty much identical to its predecessor, the Apple Watch Ultra, which was Apple's first stab at an adventure watch. The Ultra 2 has a flat 49mm display, a protruding right-side button array, and an orange action button on the left side, which can be programmed as a quick launch for an assigned purpose. It doesn't come in alternative bezel colors, so it's down to your watch strap if you want to add some customization, and its one-size-fits-all approach may continue to deter those with smaller wrists. The main difference between the Apple Watch Ultra and the Apple Watch Ultra 2 lies beneath the surface. The newer watch has the brand's S9 processor, which Apple claims is 25% more efficient, built on 5.6 billion transistors with 30% faster GPU animations and 4-core neural engines that enable machine learning twice as fast. It's also worth noting that from a sustainability standpoint, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is the better pick. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is made of 95% recycled aluminum, a major improvement from the virgin material used in the first-gen model. Winner: It's a tie — beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. Whether you prefer the rounder bezel of the Garmin or the boxier look of the Apple Watch Ultra 2, both look great on the wrist. If, like me, you have pretty petite wrists, you'll probably be wishing both came in a different size option; however, I do find the Forerunner 970 is slightly more comfortable, as the round face makes it feel smaller. Here's where things get interesting. If you're after a watch with a decent battery life, Garmin wins every time; however, the battery life of the Forerunner 970 isn't as impressive as that of some of the other best Garmin watches on the market. During testing, with the screen set to always-on, the Forerunner 970 lasted four or five days on a charge, running every day. In contrast, the Forerunner 965 would last seven days under the same conditions. According to Garmin, the Forerunner 970 will last 15 days in smartwatch mode, and up to 26 hours in GPS mode without music, and 14 hours in GPS mode with music. The Garmin Forerunner 965, on the other hand, lasted 23 days in smartwatch mode, 31 hours in GPS mode without music, and 8.5 hours in GPS mode with music. Despite this step back, Garmin comes out on top when compared to the Apple Watch Ultra 2's battery life. Like a lot of the best Apple Watches, the battery life on the Ultra 2 is one of the main things that would put me off using this watch for a marathon weekend abroad. The watch gets 36 hours of battery life with normal use. With low power mode, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 gets up to 72 hours of battery, increased from 60 hours offered through the original Ultra. That said, the Ultra 2 does charge quickly, so if you're the type of person who never forgets to keep your devices topped up, I wouldn't let this put you off. For me, however, I prefer to have a sports watch that I don't need to charge every other day. Winner: Garmin Forerunner 970 — due to that big, beautiful display, the battery life of the Forerunner 970 is slightly less than other Garmins on the market, but it still beats Apple. Both of these devices are designed to be worn 24/7, and are packed with features that'll help you train smarter and gain a better understanding of your overall health. Like a lot of the best Garmin watches, the Forerunner 970 will track your activities, sleep, step count, and calorie consumption, but the watch also has Garmin's advanced health features, like Body Battery. From a fitness perspective, the Forerunner 970 offers all the sports modes and stats you could ever want. It can double as a golf watch and also deliver extensive training load analysis, including heat and altitude acclimation, VO2 max and race time estimates, and a rating of your training readiness based on factors like sleep, stress and recent workouts. The Forerunner 970 also introduces some new features with a running economy rating, step speed loss measurements, and running tolerance, which estimates the training load you can tolerate safely each week. That said, to get the running economy and step speed loss measurements, you need to pair the Forerunner 970 with the Garmin HRM600 chest strap, which is a significant extra outlay. The data you can get from your Forerunner 970 is extensive, and there's now an evening report, as well as a morning report telling you the load your training has had on your body. There are also built-in maps for going off-road. On the other hand, Apple is yet to develop such in-depth training features, but it still does a lot more than just count your steps with its smartwatches. The Apple Watch Ultra has most of the traditional workout modes covered, and its more durable display and water resistance of up to 100 meters mean you could use it for sports like water skiing, windsurfing, and diving. You can also customize all of the data screens in each workout mode. From a mapping perspective, the Ultra 2 displays current elevation in real time and waypoints in a 3D view based on relative elevation. For hiking workouts, there's a more detailed topographic map that flags points of interest. Nearby trail information appears upon starting a hike, providing insights on the trail length, type, and difficulty. From a safety perspectiv,e the Apple Watch Ultra 2 has crash detection, tracking (using the Find My feature), and a siren. With the forthcoming watchOS 26 release, you'll be able to use the new Workout Buddy feature, which uses Apple Intelligence, coupled with your training and health data, to provide up-to-the-minute information, stats, and motivation during your workouts. Both watches have female health tracking, allowing you to monitor your cycle and track your pregnancy. Apple uses skin temperature readings to estimate your ovulation date, and can be connected to the female health tracking app Natural Cycles to be used as birth control. At the time of writing, Garmin can't. Another big difference between the two watches is how you view your data. Garmin uses the Garmin Connect app, which displays your data in different boxes, starting with your day's activity, followed by a glance at your heart rate, intensity minutes, calories burned, and stress. Click on any of these boxes and you take a deeper dive into your data. Apple uses the Apple Health app, where you can pin exactly what you want to see to the top, and scroll through your sleep, steps, and activities below. Both are packed with information, and they're pretty intuitive once you're used to using them. For me, though, the user experience with Garmin Connect is slightly better. Winner: Garmin Foreunner 970 — as a sports watch, the Forerunner 970 has all you could ever need and more. There's no reason why you couldn't train for a race and execute it well with the Apple Watch Ultra 2, but new features like running economy make the Forerunner 970 stand out. As mentioned above, both of these watches are designed to be worn when you're not exercising, but one of them handles those non-exercise activities a lot better than the other. I used my Apple Watch to find my phone, connect seamlessly to my AirPods, and reply to texts from my wrist. I've lost count of the number of times I've used Apple Pay on a run, and if you're part of the Apple ecosystem, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 fits in seamlessly. It's like having an iPhone on your wrist. The Garmin Forerunner 570, on the other hand, just doesn't compare from a smartwatch perspective. It's little things — there's still not a great mix of default watch faces, for example (and third-party watch faces fill me with dread). When someone messages you or gives you kudos on Apple Watch, the notifications you receive come with a little photo of the person. On Garmin, it's just text — of course, this isn't the be-all and end-all, but the Apple Watch Ultra 2 feels like a better smartwatch. That said, the Forerunner 970 has a lot of great features. These include the new mic and speaker, which you can use to issue voice commands like "start a timer" or activate your phone's voice assistant. There's music storage, and you can stream from Spotify on your watch, plus there's Garmin Pay on board. Winner: Apple Watch Ultra 2 — there's no doubt about it, if you're after a smartwatch, the Ultra 2 is the better choice. So which watch should you buy? The answer depends on what you're hoping to get from the watch. The Forerunner 970 is, without a doubt, one of the best running watches on the market, and one of the best Garmin watches I've ever tested. The bright screen, the flashlight, the mic and speaker, plus the new features, really make it stand out from the crowd. But it's expensive for a Forerunner, and it might make it harder to justify buying. The Apple Watch Ultra 2, on the other hand, is an extension of your iPhone on your wrist. It's the best running watch Apple makes, and it's a fantastic smartwatch when you're not running. It's also likely to be cheaper than the Garmin, as it's the older watch. If you're on a budget, and you're not bothered about the flashlight or built-in maps, the Garmin Forerunner 570 is the more affordable option. Other older watches that stand out are the Garmin Epix Pro, which comes in three different sizes, and has a bright, beautiful AMOLED screen. Whichever you choose, you'll be able to easily get through a marathon training cycle with a fantastic watch on your wrist. If you're serious about training, however, and you can afford it, I'd say the Garmin Forerunner 970 is one of the best running watches on the market right now.
Tom's Guide
7 days ago
- Tom's Guide
I raced 5 miles with the Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Garmin Venu X1 — here's the winner
The Apple Watch Ultra 2 has long been one of the best smartwatches for runners, but it still doesn't quite match the best Garmin watches for sports features. However, the gap between smart and sports watches grows smaller year by year, and the Garmin Venu X1 is a clear attempt by Garmin to tap into the Apple Watch audience more. It has a vast 2-inch AMOLED display and a thinner design than any Garmin I've tested. On the wrist, it feels more like a smartwatch than a sports watch, even though it packs in almost all of Garmin's top sports tracking features. To compare the Garmin Venu X1 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 directly, I wore both for a 5-mile race in the Essex countryside in the UK, examining their design, accuracy, and battery life. The new Garmin Venu X1 packs most of Garmin's key sports tracking and training analysis features into a very slim smartwatch with a huge AMOLED display. Its square design certainly brings to mind the Apple Watch Ultra 2, and the Venu X1 has some useful smart features like music storage and NFC payments. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is the flagship smartwatch in the brand's range, but with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 rumored to arrive this fall, you can usually find the Ultra 2 in sales somewhere. This modest discount at Amazon is on the black titanium version of the watch with the trail loop, which is the most comfortable Apple Watch strap for runners in my experience. I finished the race in 26:01, and both watches were pretty much spot on with their accuracy. However, there were definitely differences I noticed in their design and how they performed on race day. The thinness of the Garmin Venu X1 makes it feel very light and unobtrusive on the wrist, despite the fact that it has such a large screen. It felt lighter than the Apple Watch Ultra 2 during the race, and despite how thin it is, the Venu X1 doesn't feel flimsy at all, thanks to the titanium case back and sapphire screen. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is a very good-looking watch. The way the titanium case surrounds its screen might well make it more durable than the Venu X1, but the Garmin is lighter and feels better for running. At the start of the race, I missed the button on the Apple Watch Ultra 2 to begin recording, but had only taken a few steps by the time I got it going, and both watches produced accurate tracks on the two-lap course out on countryside roads. I track my runs in kilometers, and five miles is 8.05km, so both watches were very close to the correct distance — the race was Essex County's 5-mile championships and so had a licensed, accurately-measured course. One notable thing about the GPS tracking on the two watches is that the Apple Watch Ultra 2 offers dual-band GPS tracking, a more accurate method that isn't available on the Venu X1, but is available on other Garmin models. So far in testing, the all-satellite-systems tracking on the Venu X1 has been very accurate. On this course, on countryside roads with little tree cover, it was fine, but in city events where you're running around tall buildings, the dual-band tracking on the Apple would be beneficial. To test the heart rate accuracy of the two watches during the race, I also wore a Garmin HRM600 chest strap connected to a Garmin Forerunner 970 in my pocket. In my experience, chest straps are a more reliably accurate option for heart rate tracking than wrist sensors, so I could compare the readings from the Venu X1 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 to see if they matched. For the most part, both watches performed very well for heart rate accuracy, matching up to the chest strap beat-for-beat for almost the entire race. At the start of the race, it took a while for the reading of the Venu X1 to rise to the correct heart rate, and the Apple Watch Ultra 2 showed no heart rate reading at all for the first minute or two, but once both locked on to my heart rate they were accurate for the rest of the event. The Apple Watch Ultra 2's battery life has been very consistent for me through years of testing, with the watch invariably lasting a couple of days of use, even when I ran a marathon with the watch. Garmin watches usually outlast this comfortably, but not so the Garmin Venu X1, which has only been lasting me a day with the screen always-on. Garmin says it should last two days, but I'm losing about 10% of battery per hour during runs, including the 5-mile race, which is a faster drain rate than expected given the supposed 14 hours of GPS battery life. This is with the brightness of the screen set to the lowest level, too (it's still more than bright enough). Unless you plan to have the Venu X1 screen on raise-to-wake, right now, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is the winner on battery life. Garmin did launch an update for its Forerunner 570 and Forerunner 970 watches after they launched to improve battery life, so this could happen with the Venu X1 too, but right now, its big, bright screen is certainly having a huge impact on battery life. If you're someone who prefers a square watch and prioritizes a bright display over long battery life, both of these watches fit the bill, and they back up those good looks with impressive sports tracking that's accurate and detailed. The lightness of the Garmin Venu X1 makes it more comfortable on my thin wrist, and I prefer Garmin's sports tracking and training analysis to Apple's, because there's more detail and customization available. During this race, however, it was a wash as to which performed better, with very similar distance, pacing and heart rate stats from both watches. You can certainly rely on either one on race day.
Tom's Guide
25-06-2025
- Tom's Guide
I walked 7,000 steps with the Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Garmin Venu X1 — and the winner is clear
The new Garmin Venu X1 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 have a lot in common. Both are flagship smartwatches with big square touchscreens, sleek titanium cases, cutting-edge wellness and fitness tracking tech and $800 price tags. These sporty, oversized wearables also come jam-packed with safety features, workout training and recovery tools, useful sleep insights and handy communication features. However, only the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is cellular compatible. But which one tracks your fitness more accurately? That's what I set out to find out in this Apple Watch Ultra 2 vs. Garmin Venu X1 walking test. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 is one of the best full-featured smartwatches money can buy, boasting a tough-as-nails design with 100 meters of water resistance, a programmable Action button, loads of holistic and fitness tracking tools, a virtually endless number of third-party apps, first-rate communication and safety features, and the best battery of life of any Apple Watch. The Garmin Venu X1 is the brand's latest high-end smartwatch, sporting the largest screen of any Garmin wearable to date, along with the thinnest case design. Like the Apple Watch Ultra 2, it offers plenty of workout and wellness tools, along with safety features and some smart features. Where it beats the Ultra 2 is in training and recovery tools. It also tracks a much wider range of workout types. I've already covered how the Garmin Venu X1 could finally be the Apple Watch Ultra 2 alternative I've been hoping for, though further testing of the former is needed to confirm its bona fides. That said, one key advantage the Ultra 2 might have over the Venu X1 is when it comes to location tracking accuracy. This is because the Apple Watch has a comparatively more sophisticated multiband GPS antenna versus the single-band GPS in the Garmin. Multiband is especially helpful when using GPS in locations with obstructed skies, like cities or forests. And as a resident of Seattle, Washington, I'm fortunate to have access to both via a short walk out my door. I'm also fortunate to have just gotten my hands on a Garmin Venu X1 review unit, which means that it's time for a classic Tom's Guide smartwatch walk test showdown between two titans of the wearables world: Apple versus Garmin. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. Most of you probably know the drill by now, but for any newcomers, the following is how we test smartwatch tracking accuracy head-to-head. One device is worn on either wrist; in this case, the Garmin was on my left and the Apple Watch on my right. The main metric we're comparing here is step count accuracy, followed by distance and elevation gain. As a control for the first, I manually count each step taken during my walk. With my left foot only taking odd-numbered steps and my right foot taking only even-numbered ones, I keep tally until the total hits on hundred. Then, I click my old-timey manual tally counter and start the process over again at one. Meanwhile, Strava (run on a trusty iPhone 12 mini) acts as a control for distance and elevation data. So which of these two powerhouses turned in the more accurate set of metrics, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 or the Garmin Venu X1? Check out the table below for results, followed by my analysis. Apple Watch Ultra 2 Garmin Venu X1 Control Step count 6,959 steps 7,056 steps 7,000 steps (manual count) Distance 3.74 miles 3.77 miles 4.07 miles (Strava) Elevation gain 458 feet 486 feet 478 feet (Strava) Average pace 17 mins, 17 secs per mile 17 mins 26 secs per mile 15 mins, 46 secs per mile (Strava) Average heart rate 125 bpm 125 bpm n/a Max heart rate 158 bpm 159 bpm n/a Total calories burned 547 calories 445 calories n/a Device battery usage 5% 12% n/a Across the board, this was a very close one, with both smartwatches performing admirably. However, with a total step count that's just 41 steps shy of my actual total, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 beats the Garmin Venu X1, which overcounted by a still reasonable 56 steps. For what it's worth, Strava bested both devices with a step count total of 7,004 steps. Apple and Garmin both measured roughly the same distance covered, which is — interestingly and oddly enough — a full quarter-mile less than Strava's metric. Meanwhile, Garmin's elevation gain data more closely aligns with the control, with just 8 feet separating the two; Apple undercounted by a more notable 20 feet. Pace data is also roughly the same between the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and the Garmin Venu X1, while Strava's elapsed pace metric is quite a bit faster. This makes sense given Strava calculated a further distance covered in the same amount of time as the other two. Heart rate data is additionally a near match between these two premium wearables, while the Apple Watch noted slightly more calories burned during my roughly one-hour walk. On the flip side, Garmin burned through more than twice the battery capacity as Apple, using GPS to track my trek. As predicted, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 had a slight upper hand when it comes to tracking accuracy. However, both devices produced step count totals that I'd consider well within a margin for error. More importantly, across the board, both the Garmin and Apple Watch largely produced the same data, from heart rate to pace. There are a few exceptions. This is far from the first time I've encountered an Apple Watch that undercounts my climb data compared to the competition. Still, I'd consider either smartwatch to be a rock-solid fitness tracker and more than worthy of your wrist. Which wearables should I test head-to-head next? Let me know in the comments below.
Tom's Guide
22-06-2025
- Tom's Guide
5 reasons why the Garmin Venu X1 could be my new favorite Apple Watch Ultra 2 alternative
Garmin has officially declared war on Apple with the launch of the Garmin Venu X1, a square-shaped wellness-tracking powerhouse with an enormous AMOLED screen, slender titanium case and several high-end smartwatch bells and whistles. In short, it looks a whole lot like an Apple Watch Ultra 2 with a similarly heady price tag to match: $799. Full disclosure: I've yet to get the Venu X1 on my wrist — my colleague Nick has — but based on specs and initial impressions alone, Garmin's new sporty smartwatch seems to have a lot going for it. Will it be enough to lure away prospective Apple Watch Ultra 2 customers? It could be! As someone who reviews smartwatches for a living, I field a lot of questions from folks considering ditching their Apple Watch for something new. While their biggest Apple Watch complaint is regarding battery life… or lack thereof, a deficiency of advanced fitness tracking and training tools is another criticism I hear a lot. That, and a shortage of support for nuanced workout types. While Garmin watches don't have nearly as many third-party apps and smart features found on the best Apple Watch models, they generally excel when it comes to battery longevity, holistic tracking reliability and high-end exercise features. The brand also supports well over a hundred workout types, including everything from disc golf to boxing. Prior to the X1, Garmin already had solid alternatives for the Apple Watch Series 10 with the Garmin Venu 3, and the Apple Watch SE (2022) with the Garmin Vivoactive series. Now, the Kansas-based brand has a potentially worthy model to take on Cupertino's premier flagship. With that in mind, here are the five biggest things the Garmin Venu X1 has going for it, along with three things that could potentially hold it back from competing with the Apple Watch Ultra 2. Not only is this Garmin's first high-end smartwatch with a square face, but the screen, which stretches from bezel edge to bezel edge, is the brand's largest ever. In fact, it's slightly bigger than even the Apple Watch Ultra 2's display. Garmin doesn't provide max brightness figures for devices, but 2,000 nits is a likely bet. That's not quite as bright as the Ultra 2's 3,000 nit max brightness figure, but it's still impressive and means that the X1 will be visible even in very bright light. At just 7.9mm, this is also Garmin's thinnest smartwatch case to date. Compare that to the Apple Watch Ultra 2's 14.4mm case depth, and suddenly it feels downright clunky. Fortunately, despite the thin case, my colleague Nick reports that it feels anything but flimsy on the wrist. On a similar note, the sapphire crystal offers peace of mind when it comes to screen protection. By the way, at 9.7mm in thickness, even the latest Apple Watch Series 10 isn't as thin as the Venu X1. For its price, the Garmin Venu X1 ought to sport Garmin's latest and greatest holistic sensor tech. Thankfully, it does, which means you're getting equally as reliable (if not more) heart rate data from the X1. Garmin's sleep tracking insights are also the best in the biz, and more detailed and actionable, IMHO, than Apple's. Plus, Garmin's workout training and recovery tools blow Cupertino's out of the water. And that's not an opinion. That's a fact. Like the Garmin Instinct 3, the sporty, new Venu X1 has a built-in LED flashlight, something you won't find on any Apple Watch. Tucked into the top of the case, the nifty onboard 'torch' has an adjustable output and can be set to white or red light. Perfect for late-night dog walks and finding items in a darkened bedroom without waking a sleeping partner, this is a feature I truly wish Apple (and Google and Samsung, etc.) would rip off and add to their own devices. The best Garmin watches aren't exactly known for their smart features. While most higher-end Garmins offer the basics, like onboard music storage, NFC payments and mirrored smartphone notifications, that tends to be where the list ends. The Venu X1 offers a bit more. It isn't Garmin's first smartwatch with an onboard microphone and speaker, but it's a nice addition for folks who want to take phone calls from the wrist, as you would with an Apple Watch Ultra 2. Of course, Garmin doesn't offer cellular connectivity on any of the brand's smartwatches, so you'll need to have a paired phone nearby to make the most of the mic and speaker. While the Garmin Venu X1 has a lot going for it against the Apple Watch Ultra 2, battery life is one area it doesn't impress. Sure, in smartwatch mode, you can get up to eight days of usage, but that drops to just two days when using the always-on screen mode. And when using GPS to track an activity, battery life is just 14 hours. By comparison, the Apple Watch Ultra 2 is good for roughly 36 hours in smartwatch mode (or 72 hours in low-power mode) with the always-on display and 12 hours when using GPS to track an activity. Another downside to the Venu X1 compared to the Ultra 2 is that the former doesn't have multiband GPS; the latter does. The advantage of multiband is better tracking reliability, particularly in areas where the sky may be obstructed. Finally, the Garmin Veny X1 has just 50 meters of water resistance. That's enough for brief periods of surface-level swimming but nothing more. The Ultra 2, meanwhile, offers 100 meters of water resistance and is suitable for scuba diving.
Tom's Guide
18-06-2025
- Business
- Tom's Guide
Samsung's Galaxy Watch Ultra is at its lowest price ever in this early Prime Day deal
The Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra has been out for nearly a year and it's one of the best smartwatches you can get. A sequel is likely to launch soon, but if you're looking for a bargain — this early Prime Day deal is for you. Right now you can get the Galaxy Watch Ultra (47mm/LTE) for just $399 at Amazon. That's the lowest price we've seen yet, knocking $250 off the normal price. Samsung's high-end smartwatch is under $400 for the first time ever with this early Prime Day deal, but only for the Titanium Gray and Titanium White models. The Titanium Silver variant is also on sale, but only for $180 off. It's the cheapest price we've seen for the 47mm watch. It boasts a sportier and more durable design than the Galaxy Watch 7 and it's one of the best smartwatches for tracking workouts. Similar to the Apple Watch Ultra 2, Samsung's Galaxy Watch Ultra is the high-end luxury watch in the company's smartwatch range with a number of upgrades over the Galaxy Watch 7 including longer battery life, a more durable design and an extra button. The watch is already cheaper than the best Apple Watch, which is the Apple Watch Ultra 2 available for $649 on Amazon; $250 more than the Galaxy Watch Ultra is going for in this deal. The Galaxy Watch Ultra is the one that changed my mind about smartwatches, and I wear it near daily, especially when tracking walks and running stats. It's far sportier than the main Galaxy Watch and includes dual-band GPS tracking and active sensors. While it might not match the sports tracking of the best Garmin watches, the Galaxy Watch Ultra offers a lot more smart features, and if you want a sporty Wear OS device it's the standout option, especially at this knockdown price.
