I ran 10km wearing the Google Fitbit Air and the Apple Watch Ultra 3 here
are all the differences in heart rate, calories & more

Date:
Sun, 31 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Description:
How the new Fitbit compares with the Apple Watch Ultra 3 on a 10 kilometer run

FULL STORY ======================================================================Copy link Facebook X Whatsapp Reddit Pinterest Flipboard Threads Email Share this article 0 Join the conversation Follow us Add us as a preferred source on Google Newsletter Subscribe to our newsletter The Google Fitbit Air is here, and early adopters are getting to grips with the new screenless fitness tracker and its AI-powered premium Google Health Coach.

I've shared my early thoughts after a few hours of testing and we've covered existing Fitbit users' disappointment and anger over some of the app changes but how does it compare against an Apple Watch , perhaps the best-known and certainly the most commonly-spotted fitness wearable on wrists everywhere? To find out, I went on a 10-kilometer evening run (braving the UK heatwave) with the Google Fitbit Air on one hand, and the Apple Watch Ultra 3 on the other.
I was also wearing the Polar H10 heart rate monitor, intending to use it as a litmus test for accuracy, but the chest strap malfunctioned so I don't have any meaningful results to publish here. Latest Videos From You may like
Google Fitbit Air vs Whoop: Should you get Fitbit's new screenless tracker? I've tried the new Google Fitbit Air and Whoop should be worried The Google Fitbit Air finally breaks cover, and it heralds a new era of screenless fitness tracking

I'm primarily looking at metrics such as heart rate and calories burned. Both wearables use optical heart rate sensors LED lights that monitor blood flow on your wrist to estimate your heart rate. The estimation of calories burned combines your heart rate data with movement data and other metrics to calculate your energy expenditure.

As well as calories burned and average heart rate , I've included the results for average pace here too. I'm expecting the Apple Watch, with its built-in GPS, to be more accurate than the Fitbit Air, which is piggybacking off the GPS from my iPhone as it doesn't have any GPS capabilities itself.

It's also worth noting I have not linked Google Health and Apple Health at
the time of writing, so these results are separate. The results Below are the results from my 10km run. Tap the 'next' tab on the graph to cycle through
all three metrics. Get daily insight, inspiration and deals in your inbox
Sign up for breaking news, reviews, opinion, top tech deals, and more.
Contact me with news and offers from other Future brands Receive email from
us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors By submitting your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over. Previous 1 / 4 Next Average heart rate Google Fitbit Air 158 Apple Watch Ultra 3 161 0 50 100 150 200 Average heart rate Data Product
Value Google Fitbit Air 158 Apple Watch Ultra 3 161 Average Pace Google
Fitbit Air 5.37 Apple Watch Ultra 3 5.47 0 1.5 3 4.5 6 Average Pace Data Product Value Google Fitbit Air 5.37 Apple Watch Ultra 3 5.47 Calories burned Google Fitbit Air 773 Apple Watch Ultra 3 750 0 200 400 600 800 Calories burned Data Product Value Google Fitbit Air 773 Apple Watch Ultra 3 750 Distance Google Fitbit Air 10.43 Apple Watch Ultra 3 10.03 0 3.75 7.5 11.25
15 Kilometers Distance Data Product Value Google Fitbit Air 10.43 Apple Watch Ultra 3 10.03 As you can see in the graphs above, both heart rate and calorie readings are quite close. The average heart rate for my workout was just a 3bpm difference between the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and the Google Fitbit Air. It would have been nice to have information from my chest strap to compare this as well, but I'll try this again before my full review with a different electrical heart rate monitor.

However, on previous tests the Apple Watch Ultra 3 matched the electrical heart rate monitor exactly , indicating that the Google Fitbit Air is pretty dang accurate too.

Likewise, the calorie counts on both wearables were relatively similar, with the Google Fitbit Air exceeding the Apple Watch Ultra 3's calculation by less than 25 calories. No two wearables are going to be exactly alike here, but this is close enough that I'd feel comfortable using the Google Fitbit Air day-to-day. What to read next The best running watch for 2026: Watches for every level of runner The best fitness trackers 2026 The Huawei Band 11 Pro review: A fitness tracker with a metal body and built-in GPS

Average pace is a different matter. As previously mentioned, the Google
Fitbit Air has no onboard GPS of its own, and although it showed a lovely map of my route obtained via my iPhone's GPS, it also overestimated my pace and thought I was a whole 10 seconds faster per kilometer than the Apple Watch did.

I know how my paces feel it was a hot day and I had steep declines and inclines at either end of my run, so I ran slower than my usual brisk clip. I'm far more inclined to agree with Apple's assessment than the Fitbit's pace estimation here. Apple also gave me far more detail about my run, such as stride length and vertical oscillation (how bouncy I was during the run), whereas the Google Fitbit Air collects no such information. What Fitbit does surface, however, is steps taken during the workout (9,342 to be precise), which the Apple Watch Ultra 3 doesn't.

Fitbit also massively overestimated my run at 10.43km rather than 10.03km, even though it shows exactly the same map as my Apple Watch, with an
identical finishing point, as you can see below in the comparison pic. Unlike 3bpm or 23kcal, over 400 meters and 10 seconds of pace are big differences. Apple Fitness Google Health Analysis In terms of the metrics relying on the onboard heart rate monitor, the $99.99 / 84.99 / AU$199 Google Fitbit Air is very accurate compared to the $799 / 749 / AU$1,399 Apple Watch Ultra 3.

I wouldn't have expected the Google Fitbit Air to be as reliable for run tracking as one of the best running watches , considering it doesn't even
have GPS as long as it's consistent for casual users, that'll be fine for most people. Anyone (like me) who cares enough to want maps, technique information like stride length, and pinpoint-accurate pace will likely gravitate towards a dedicated running watch anyway. Still, I was hoping for a smaller difference here.

The Apple Watch Ultra 3 has proven itself to be a very accurate wrist-based optical heart rate solution, so far superseded only by dedicated heart rate monitors. Based on this, I'm happy the Google Fitbit Air cleaves closely to this standard although it's a shame I can't rely on GPS data harvested from my phone for more than a rough estimation. Google Fitbit Air deals 84.99 at very.co.uk 84.99 at Amazon Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.



======================================================================
Link to news story: https://www.techradar.com/health-fitness/fitness-trackers/i-ran-10-km-wearing- the-google-fitbit-air-and-the-apple-watch-ultra-3-here-are-all-the-differences -in-heart-rate-calories-and-more


--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 (Linux/64)
* Origin: tqwNet Technology News (1337:1/100)