I test a lot of smart watches, and my two favorite releases are Apple Watch Series 10 and Garman Vivitive 6. Starting 9 399 and 9 299 respectively, each device plays with physical controls and plays on a bright and responsible touch screen.
Enhanced with comfortable, thin and comprehensive sensor and safety properties, any of these smart watch is a great choice for keeping tabs on your overall health, sleep quality and exercise habits.
But what is the fitness tracker more accurate? When I recently tested the Apple Watch Series 10 vs Garman Vivitative 6 in 8,000 steps walk tests, the keeperteino device came to the fore. When walking the event turns into cycling, what will the result be the same? Read to find out.
You can like
Apple Watch 10 vs German Vivoactive 6: Tech Compare
(Image Credit: Guide of Dan Breakglia/Tom)
But first, it is worth noting that the Apple Watch Series 10 has a potential advantage of Garman Vivitive 6 regarding exercise tracking accuracy. While both devices are on the GPS for location data, Apple Watch only has an ultimator for precise height tracking.
The Garaman still provides mountain climbing data for external exercises, but by my testing, its measurement is conservative. For example, Samsung Galaxy Watch 7 and vs. Apple Watch 10 compared to Vivitto 6, the head -to -head walk test reduced my height in the head -to -head walk test.
This internal citizen motorcycle riding included plenty of pedaling. So did Garman’s data justice my efforts? What about Apple? Read
Apple Watch 10 vs German Vivoactive 6: Motorcycle Test
(Image Credit: Guide of Dan Breakglia/Tom)
Fighting for Sunday and going into some cardio, I started a 12 -mile motorcycle ride around Washington’s Lake Union, Seattle. As it is said to travel in less than 10 palaces, this ride contained many height changes – Seattle is a substantial diverse city.
In addition to being trapped on one of the two drawings on my way (not bad for a beautiful and busy Sunday), the ride went easily. Even most intelligent drivers of Seattle were passing by caution and enough space.
I wore a car on my left wrist and Apple Watch to my right. As a control, I operated Strava on my iPhone 12 mini riding my handle bars. How to compare the results:
Apple Watch 10 vs German Vivoactive 6: Motorcycle Ride results
Swipe to scroll horizontally Apple Watch Header cell – column 0
Apple Watch 10
German vivoactive 6
Strava
Total distance
12.26 miles
12.22 miles
12.35 miles
The benefit of total height
682 feet
664 feet
690 feet
Average
9.8 miles per hour
11 miles per hour
11 miles per hour
Speed of maximum
19.6 miles per hour
24.2 miles per hour
25.9 miles per hour
Average heart rate
156 bpm
156 bpm
n/a
Maximum heart rate
176 bpm
178 bpm
n/a
The calories burned yesterday
689 calories
760 calories
n/a
Battery sleeping
11 %
7 %
n/a
Distance data is a match close to the entire board, though Apple Watch’s mileage is slightly closer to Strava. Elevation data is a different story. As I suspect, Vivito 6 reduced my efforts to climb my mountains with a significant margin. This is almost certainly due to the lack of the ship’s allotment.
As I suspect, Vivito 6 reduced my efforts to climb my mountains with a significant margin.
In the meantime, Apple marked my climb on Garman’s only 8 feet shy, this is an impressive and satisfactory result. Garman was the head from the head to the head compared to Jabalt 3, the Apple Watch 10 had a height of height Waaaaayay Fortunately, it appears as an irregular rather than normal.
While both Garman and Strava calculated an average speed of 11 miles per hour for my ride, Apple reported an average slower speed at 9.8 miles per hour. Further, Apple’s maximum speed measurement is significantly slower than Garman and Strava, which is disappointing and difficult to calculate.
(Image Credit: Guide of Dan Breakglia/Tom)
I know this route well and often do it motorcycle motorcycles, almost Almost always with somehow tracking. Although I’m not a high -speed demons, there are several places along the track where it is easy to reach 25 miles per hour without much effort. Keeping in mind, I am sure that Apple’s top speed estate for this particular ride is less.
I am sure that Apple’s top speed estate for this ride is less.
Fortunately, the heart rate data between Series 10 and Vivoactive 6 is so clear. Given both the credibility of Apple and Garman’s heart rate tracking, it should not be surprising.
It is worth noting that Vivoactive 6 is not using the latest/largest sensor array. However, based on this test and the heads of the previous head, Garman’s old Holistic Tech seems as reliable as Apple’s latest.
Despite logging in with a slightly riding with a further achievement, Apple Watch 10 was estimated to be estimated at 71 low calorie Garman. Finally, my 1 hour, 7 -minute motorcycle ride resulted in the 11 % battery drain compared to 7 % fatigue for the Garman for the Apple Watch for Apple Watch.
Apple Watch 10 vs German vivoactive 6: And is the winner …
(Image Credit: Guide of Dan Breakglia/Tom)
It was very close. Both devices turned into an impressive distance measure for my ride, but Apple was a bit close. More importantly, Apple’s mountain climbing data is just 8 feet compared to Garaman’s 26 feet.
As a keen bicyclist in the mountain environment, the right advantage data is required for me. Thus, I will not probably use Vivoactive 6 to track bike rides in the future in the city of Emerald. The device permanently reduces my efforts to climb, whether walking or bike.
Truth be told, I probably will not reach the Apple Watch Series 10, based on its proportional Max speed data in this test. So, what is my going smart watch for motorcycle riders in 2025? Snowbold is equivalent to going to me, uneven and long -lasting Garman Jawlath 3.
More from Tom Guide:
Today’s Best Apple Watch Series 10 and Garman Vivo Active 6 deals
