Latest news with #Vivoactive6
Android Authority
28-06-2025
- Android Authority
I tested the Garmin Vivoactive 6 and Apple Watch SE, and I still prefer Garmin as a gym mate
Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority The Apple Watch SE is the blueprint for what most people expect from a smartwatch: a clean design, deep smartphone integration, and enough wellness tracking features to stay reasonably healthy. At a reduced price compared to the brand's flagship lineup, the SE is also accessible. However, with the launch of the Vivoactive 6, Garmin seems to be stepping up to the plate with a potential competitor. After testing both watches side by side, it's clear Garmin isn't trying to beat Apple at its own game. It's playing a different one. And for anyone serious about fitness, it might be a tempting prospect. Do you prefer the Garmin Vivoactive 6 or Apple Watch SE? 0 votes Garmin Vivoactive 6 NaN % Apple Watch SE NaN % At a glance, these watches tell different stories. The Apple Watch SE wears like a piece of jewelry. It's minimalist, rounded, and familiar. Despite its robust tracking suite, I tend to set it with watch faces that emphasize aesthetics more than stats, so the daily impression is less sporty and more covert-tech (or as covert as a smartwatch can be). It's also so ubiquitous that it doesn't say much about my fitness regimen; you're as likely to see an Apple Watch on an exec as you are on a power-walking mom. Where the Apple Watch SE shoots the gap between tech and refinement, the Vivoactive 6 is unapologetically built for sport. In other words, I'm just as comfortable wearing the SE to a dinner party as I am on a treadmill. The Vivoactive 6, by contrast, feels unapologetically purposeful. Its rounded, sport-first build and physical buttons are made for the gym (or the trail), and while I think it's a good-looking watch, it's not quite as upscale as Apple's offerings. It's a fitness tracker first and foremost. Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority Yet, despite the fact that the SE fits more scenarios, the Garmin stays on my wrist longer thanks to its fantastic battery life. As is often the case with Garmin watches, longevity is a strong point of the Vivoactive 6. The Apple Watch SE requires a daily top-up, lasting just over 24 hours between charges. The Vivoactive 6 easily lasted me five days per charge. That kind of endurance means I don't have to think about charging it before a hike or a morning workout, and I can take it on overnight adventures without packing a cable. Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority Workouts and weekend adventures are, of course, where Garmin shines. The Vivoactive 6 tracks everything from steps and calories to training load, recovery time, heart rate variability (HRV), stress, and sleep, plus Garmin-specific tools like Body Battery and Health Snapshot. It's an incredibly dense platform that turns stats into actionable insights. Garmin still offers a more robust fitness tracking platform for serious training. Apple has made huge strides in sports tracking, but Garmin contextualizes data in a way that feels more athlete-focused. When I train too hard, Garmin responds with recovery advice. When I underperform, it guides me just the same. I love Apple's Rings for basic motivation as much as the next person, but Garmin's tools are built for more dedicated athletes and data junkies. Even on GPS accuracy, Garmin still holds the edge. I ran identical routes with both watches and compared the maps. Garmin's tracks were tighter and more consistent, especially in tree cover and dense areas. You can see on the map above the SE's route dips into the road rather than sticking to the path I actually ran. Around the bend, it even has me on the complete opposite side of the street. To be fair, overall, the SE is very good, but if true precision matters, Garmin is still the benchmark. Garmin also still holds the edge for precise GPS data. Without a doubt, the Apple Watch SE is the better smartwatch. It handles calls, texts, voice commands, app support, and music control with the kind of seamlessness only Apple can pull off. The haptics are crisp, the interface is smooth, and the third-party app support is unmatched. And yet, during workouts, I found myself constantly distracted by it. Deep iPhone integration means a flood of buzzes, banners, group chats, and news alerts breaking my focus. The Vivoactive 6, by contrast, stayed quiet. It delivered only the essentials: a notification here, a calendar alert there. And when I needed to check something, the interface was simple and distraction-free. I wasn't tempted to scroll through the family chat while pausing a workout or changing my music. Sometimes, less really is more, especially when you're mid-run and looking for any excuse to quit early. Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority So yes, the Apple Watch SE remains a crowd-pleaser. It's the ultimate entry point into the Apple Watch world and impressively capable for the price. It's long been my preferred option for everyday wear because I love the seamless integration with my iPhone and the robust app support (outside of the gym setting). But Garmin isn't chasing Apple's formula. The Vivoactive 6 doubles down on data-rich fitness, weeklong battery life, and tools that help you train smarter. When I'm in the thick of a training cycle and care more about split times than text replies, that focus makes it a far more useful device.
Android Authority
14-06-2025
- Android Authority
The Vivoactive 6 is the best and worst thing to happen to the Garmin Venu series
Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority I've been testing Garmin's Vivoactive and Venu series for generations, and in the past, each line clearly catered to distinct user needs. The Vivoactive line was my go-to recommendation for budget-conscious athletes. The Venu stood as Garmin's best option for a rounded smartwatch experience. With the release of the Garmin Vivoactive 6, however, the line between the two series feels blurrier than ever, and for the first time, I'm struggling to distinguish between them clearly. Would you prefer Garmin's Vivoactive 6 or Venu 3? 0 votes Garmin Vivoactive 6 NaN % Garmin Venu 3 NaN % Neither NaN % Halfway through testing the Vivoactive 6, I realized that the differences between it and the Venu 3 are far less clear than I expected. The two watches each boast an AMOLED display and utilize predictably similar design language. Both feature sleek, lightweight polymer builds, comfortable, quick-release silicone straps, and 5ATM water resistance. I wear either one without a second thought about durability or comfort. The Vivoactive 6 is smaller and lighter, with an aluminum bezel instead of a stainless steel one, but I still find it a relatively elegant accessory, just like the Venu 3. Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority Under the hood, both watches deliver over a week of battery life, so I'm never left stranded with a dead device, along with music storage, NFC support, and access to Garmin's Connect IQ app store. On top of that, they share nearly identical core health and fitness tracking features. The Venu 3 does include a newer heart rate sensor and a barometric altimeter, but in my testing, both devices proved remarkably accurate compared to my chest strap. Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority On both devices, users will find advanced sleep tracking, SpO2 monitoring, robust fitness tracking toolkits, and highly reliable built-in GPS. Each also offers Garmin's full suite of safety and tracking features, Find My Phone and Watch, sleep coach and nap detection, and Garmin-specific favorites like Body Battery and Morning Report. In short, both cover all the bases. Garmin is closing the gap between Vivoactive and Venu lineups, leaving shoppers with less differentiation. This overlap raises concerns about product line differentiation and, for me, serves as a knock against the Venu line. The Vivoactive 6 is priced much lower at $299 but includes a variety of features that were once exclusive to the Venu series. The Venu 3, meanwhile, asks shoppers to drop $499. That's a hard sell when the Vivoactive 6 provides a comparable experience at a more accessible price point. The cheaper device also packs in a few training-specific tools not found on the Venu, like extra sport modes, route and course tracking, Smart Wake, and daily suggested walking workouts. Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority Of course, that isn't to say the Vivoactive 6 has everything shoppers may like about the Venu. I was most disappointed to see the ECG app is still missing from the Vivoactive 6 (due to the older heart rate sensor). There's also the extra button, metallic detailing, and microphone/speaker package for voice assistance and Bluetooth phone call support. Yet surely those differences don't equate to a $200 markup, do they? Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority The positive spin is that the Vivoactive 6's feature set and proximity to the Venu 3's offerings could spark evolution for the Venu series. To maintain the line's premium status, Garmin needs to reposition the lineup as a true smartwatch. I, for one, would love to see LTE support and expanded third-party app integrations. This would make the Venu series more competitive with devices like the Pixel Watch 3 or Apple Watch. My hope is that the Venu line will expand its smart features to maintain its premium status. All in all, the Garmin Vivoactive 6 and Venu 3 are both great watches, but the line between them is getting blurry. As the Vivoactive keeps leveling up, the Venu has to evolve too, not just in price, but in purpose. Garmin doesn't need to scrap either lineup. The company just needs to give shoppers clearer reasons to choose one over the other.
Phone Arena
11-06-2025
- Business
- Phone Arena
Surprise sale knocks the Garmin Vivoactive 5 at its best price
Did you check out Amazon's juicy discount on the Garmin Vivoactive 5 from last week? Don't worry if you missed it—the e-commerce giant is now giving you an even bigger price cut. In fact, one particular colorway is down to its best price right now, sold for $100 off its original price. $100 off (33%) We haven't seen the Garmin Vivoactive 5 for less than $200 in quite some time, but Amazon's latest deal changes that. For what might be an extremely limited time, you can get the timepiece with an 11-day battery life and multiple features for $100 off its original price. Buy at Amazon $98 off (33%) If you're not a particular fan of Black-colored GPS watches, consider the model in Ivory instead. This one is 33% off at Amazon as well, which saves you $98. We don't know how long this sale will last and would recommend acting fast if you find the promo attracive. Buy at Amazon We're talking about the Black unit, which looks as stylish as it sounds. Not a huge fan of this particular paintjob? Well, the model in Ivory is also on sale at a pretty attractive 28% discount, saving you $ Garmin recently launched this puppy's successor, the Vivoactive 6, we think it'll be some time before a nice price cut hits it. So, if you're looking for a Garmin watch with an 11-day battery life and an AMOLED touchscreen under $200, now's the time to priced at just under $300, this GPS watch delivers quite a bit. For starters, it measures your body's energy levels and gives you a body battery score to help determine the optimal times to rest and be active. Also, you have advanced sleep tracking and a coach. The unit provides insights on how to improve your routine and establish better sleeping habits. Active users aren't left out, either. The Vivoactive 5 supports more than 30 built-in workout apps, including swimming and golf, as well as running and HIIT profiles. Another welcome extra here is the morning report—a customizable feature that shows weather, sleep, HRV status info, and more. As we've pointed out in our Garmin Vivoactive 5 review, the unit lasts four days with an always-on display, surpassing many of the best smartwatches for Android lovers. If you turn off this functionality, you can keep it on your wrist even longer between charges. Overall, the Vivoactive 5 is one of Garmin's best budget GPS watches. Quite tempting even at its standard price, the device is an absolute must-have at $100 off. Get yours and save big before it's too late.
Tom's Guide
04-06-2025
- Health
- Tom's Guide
I biked 12 miles with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Vivoactive 6 — here's the winner
I test a lot of smartwatches, and two of my favorite recent releases are the Apple Watch Series 10 and Garmin Vivoactive 6. Starting at $399 and $299, respectively, each device sports a bright and responsive touchscreen paired with physical controls. Comfortable, slender and brimming with holistic sensors and safety features, either of these top smartwatches is a great choice for keeping tabs on your overall health, sleep quality and workout habits. But which is the more accurate fitness tracker? When I recently tested the Apple Watch Series 10 versus the Garmin Vivoactive 6 in an 8,000-step walk test, Cupertino's device came out on top. Will the result be the same when the event switches from walking to cycling? Read on to find out. But first, it's worth noting that the Apple Watch Series 10 has one potential advantage over the Garmin Vivoactive 6 regarding workout tracking accuracy. While both devices sport onboard GPS for location data, only the Apple Watch has an altimeter for precise elevation tracking. The Garmin still provides hill climb data for outdoor workouts, but from my testing, its measurements tend to be conservative. For example, the Vivoactive 6 undercounted my elevation gain in prior head-to-head walk tests versus the Samsung Galaxy Watch 7 and versus the Apple Watch 10. This inner-urban bike ride included a considerable amount of uphill pedaling. So did Garmin's data do my efforts justice? What about Apple's? Read on. The Garmin Vivoactive 6 is a lightweight and comfortable smartwatch with tons of workout training tools, impressive sleep tracking insights, solid battery life and a useful smattering of smart features. The Apple Watch Series 10 boasts a bright and beautiful touchscreen with improved viewing angles, a slender and easy-wearing design, and more smart features and available apps than nearly any other smartwatch available today. To fight the Sunday scaries and get in some cardio, I embarked on a 12-mile bike ride around Seattle, Washington's Lake Union. Cruising through no fewer than 10 neighborhoods, as noted, this ride involved lots of elevation changes — Seattle is quite the topographically diverse city — and plenty of people watching and sightseeing. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. With the exception of getting stuck at one of the two drawbridges along my route (not bad for a beautiful and busy Sunday), the ride went smoothly. Even Seattle's mostly mindless drivers were passing with caution and ample space. I wore the Garmin on my left wrist and the Apple Watch on my right. As a control, I ran Strava on my iPhone 12 mini mounted on my handlebars. Here's how the results compare: Apple Watch 10 Garmin Vivoactive 6 Strava Total distance 12.26 miles 12.22 miles 12.35 miles Total elevation gain 682 feet 664 feet 690 feet Average speed 9.8 mph 11 mph 11 mph Max speed 19.6 mph 24.2 mph 25.9 mph Average heart rate 156 bpm 156 bpm n/a Max heart rate 176 bpm 178 bpm n/a Total calories burned 689 calories 760 calories n/a Battery drained 11% 7% n/a Distance data is a near-match across the board, though the Apple Watch's mileage is slightly closer to Strava's tally. Elevation data is a different story. As I suspected, the Vivoactive 6 undercounted my hill climb efforts by a notable margin. This is almost certainly due to the lack of an onboard altimeter. As I suspected, the Vivoactive 6 undercounted my hill climb efforts by a notable margin. Apple, meanwhile, marked my climb at just 8 feet shy of Garmin's measure, an impressive and reassuring result. In a previous head-to-head versus the Garmin Instinct 3, the Apple Watch 10's elevation gain data was waaaaay off. Fortunately, that appears to be an anomaly rather than the norm. While both Garmin and Strava calculated an 11 mph average speed for my ride, Apple reported a slightly slower average pace of 9.8 mph. More notably, Apple's max speed measurement is significantly slower than Garmin's and Strava's, something that is both frustrating and difficult to account for. I know this route well and bike it often, almost always with some form of tracking. While I'm no speed demon, there are several spots along the trek where it's easy to reach speeds of 25 mph without too much effort. With that in mind, I'm convinced that Apple's top speed stat for this particular ride is lower than it should be. I'm convinced that Apple's top speed stat for this ride is lower than it should be. Fortunately, heart rate data is oh so clean between the Series 10 and the Vivoactive 6. This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, given both Apple and Garmin's reputation for heart rate tracking accuracy. It's worth noting that the Vivoactive 6 isn't using Garmin's latest/greatest sensor array. However, based on this test and previous head-to-heads, Garmin's older holistic tech seems just as reliable as Apple's latest. Despite logging a slightly further ride with more elevation gain, the Apple Watch 10 estimated 71 fewer calories burned than Garmin. Finally, my 1 hour, 7 minute bike ride resulted in 11% battery drain for the Apple Watch versus 7% exhaustion for the Garmin. This was a pretty close one. Both devices turned in impressively accurate distance measurements for my ride, but Apple was slightly closer. More importantly, Apple's hill climb data is off by only 8 feet compared to 26 feet for the Garmin. As an avid cyclist in a hilly environment, accurate ascent data is a must for me. As such, I likely won't be using the Vivoactive 6 to track future bike rides in the Emerald City; the device consistently undercounts my climb efforts, whether walking or biking. Truth be told, I probably won't reach for the Apple Watch Series 10, either, based on its wacky max speed data in this test. So, what's my go-to smartwatch for bike rides in 2025? The same as my go-to for snowboard tracking, the rugged and long-lasting Garmin Instinct 3.
Android Authority
25-05-2025
- Android Authority
I tested Garmin's newest Smart Wake feature, and I'm just as tired as ever
Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority I've been wearing Garmin's Vivoactive 6 for nearly a month, and I love the device's bright display, all-day health and fitness tracking, and improved recovery tools. However, one of its most intriguing new features hasn't quite delivered. In theory, Smart Wake should have me starting each day feeling a little more human, with promises to wake me at the optimal moment in my sleep cycle. In practice, I might as well be using a regular alarm. Would you use a Smart Wake alarm on your wearable? 0 votes Yes, definitely! NaN % No, I am not interested. NaN % Testing Smart Wake on the Vivoactive 6 Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority A perpetual night owl, I was eager to see if Garmin could revamp my morning routine. When I found out how simple setting a Smart Wake alarm was, I thought I was off to a good start. The Vivoactive 6 features a refreshed UI so navigation will be a little different if you're already a Garmin user, but the gist is that you set an alarm as usual and then enable the special treatment. Once I found the main activities page with a press of the top button, I tapped Clocks, Alarms, set up an alarm, and toggled on Smart Wake. This establishes a 30-minute window ahead of the set time during which the watch will trigger an alarm if it senses you're in a light sleep stage. The idea is that you will wake up more refreshed. With Smart Wake, the watch should trigger your alarm at the most ideal time, during your light sleep stage. But that didn't make a difference for me. To give the feature a fair shot, I kept everything else consistent, including my general bedtime. My wake time was identical every morning, and I made no changes to my sleep environment. I ran the test over a few weeks, hoping to notice a difference in how I felt each morning. What I got was a very punctual alarm that went off exactly at the end of the Smart Wake window every single time. Not once did it trigger early, suggesting that I was either never in light sleep or was simply too sleep-deprived to rouse. As for how I felt, groggy as ever. Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority To be fair, that might have less to do with Garmin and more to do with me consistently skimping on sleep. It's worth noting though that sleep stage tracking on wearables, even on devices as data-driven as Garmin's, isn't perfectly accurate. The Vivoactive 6 bases sleep stages on heart rate variability and movement data. While these can project a general sense of a user's sleep stages, it's still an estimation, not a medical-grade readout. They don't perfectly align with my Oura Ring 4, which is typically considered quite accurate. In other words, the watch might think I'm in deep sleep when I'm not, or vice versa, potentially missing opportunities for the Smart Wake to trigger. Rise and shine? More like rise and whine. Sleep stage tracking on wearables is an imperfect science, which limits these smart alarms. Smart Wake should be especially helpful for people constantly running on limited sleep. We need help dragging ourselves back to consciousness. But it seems that short, compressed sleep windows might not give Garmin enough time or variability to work its magic. This highlights a core tension in sleep tech: features designed for ideal conditions often fall flat in real-world use. Anyone trying to squeeze in six hours before a 5 a.m. workout may not see the benefit. Garmin's Smart Wake feature is promising on paper, but the Vivoactive 6 didn't deliver the transformative wake-up experience I was hoping for. I love the silent wrist-based alarm that helps me rise without waking my partner. I love the ability to set my alarm in bed when I'm already comfortably under the sheets and snooze it from the same spot in the morning if I'm not ready to face the day. My hope is that the smart aspect of Smart Wake continues to improve. For now, if your sleep is already on the edge, your watch might not save your day.
