Fitbit Charge HR Vs. Apple Watch - Fitness Tracking

[Norcal.]

Basically, I only really care about fitness tracking - specifically calories burned and steps taken. Is there a disadvantage using the Fitbit Charge HR over the Apple Watch? Both measure heart rate with a LED sensor.

https://www.fitbit.com/purepulse

 

[I7guy]

Basically, I only really care about fitness tracking - specifically calories burned and steps taken. Is there a disadvantage using the Fitbit Charge HR over the Apple Watch? Both measure heart rate with a LED sensor.

https://www.fitbit.com/purepulse

Apple watch is nice. It's sleek, sexy and is basically an extension of your phone that requires charging almost daily. The charge HR and Surge are specifically fitness devices, that with optimum use can last 4-7 days. I have the surge and made that very decision for I like that I can use the surge gps and leave my phone home. If all you are looking for is HR monitoring the charge HR does it well.

 

[ravipiero]

Wait for MS Band 2.

I had the original MS Band and Charger HR and I really like my Band except for design and build quality. Seems like both have been fixed on Band 2.

 

[Norcal.]

Apple watch is nice. It's sleek, sexy and is basically an extension of your phone that requires charging almost daily. The charge HR and Surge are specifically fitness devices, that with optimum use can last 4-7 days. I have the surge and made that very decision for I like that I can use the surge gps and leave my phone home. If all you are looking for is HR monitoring the charge HR does it well.

I don't really care about the other features, only fitness/calorie tracking. All I really care about is the most accurate tracker, and if the Fitbit is less accurate than the Apple Watch

 

[I7guy]

I don't really care about the other features, only fitness/calorie tracking. All I really care about is the most accurate tracker, and if the Fitbit is less accurate than the Apple Watch

I can't vouch for the dead-spot-on accuracy of either. If you look through enough web searches there is stuff all over the place. Might want to head on over to the fitbit forums for additional input.

 

[unlinked]

The charge HR and Surge are specifically fitness devices, that with optimum use can last 4-7 days.

That may be the advertised time between charges but I find my Charge HR gets nothing like it. Practically it gets more like 2 days so I charge mine every morning while showering/getting up.

 

[I7guy]

That may be the advertised time between charges but I find my Charge HR gets nothing like it. Practically it gets more like 2 days so I charge mine every morning while showering/getting up.

My Surge gets at least 4 days, sometimes 5. The GPS will definitely shorten the time between charges. Charge HR should last a whole lot more.

 

[mostlynameless]

I have a Charge HR and an Apple Watch. When I wear them both and check the heart rate, they are usually within one beat of each other. The charge gets maybe 3 days if you sleep with it.

 

[rvinny]

I had the Charge HR and upgraded to the Apple Watch.
For pure fitness tracking;

1. Fitbit gives you better feedback on activities. (graphs, time in HR zone, etc)
2. The AW emphasizes a better quality day. (instead of merely counting steps like Fitbit, you are concerned with time in HR zone as well as movement > the three rings of the AW).

other bits;
Battery on my Charge HR lasted 4-5 days. AW - 1.5.
AW notifications and apps - obvious item but I enjoy text messages, etc on the wrist, stop watch, turn by turn nav, etc

The AW is cool and I do enjoy it more than the Fitbit. However, given a do over, I don't know that I would purchase it again (or Fitbit or any other wearable for that matter). This is all early tech and I'm not feeling this "always connected" direction of things and having yet another screen or thing to charge. From a fitness perspective, they are "OK" and probably benefit some people who need a reminder, but for serious fitness, stick with a HR monitor and an app on your phone. Plus, half the people I know who wear Fitbits don't even exercise.

 

[I7guy]

I had the Charge HR and upgraded to the Apple Watch.
For pure fitness tracking;

1. Fitbit gives you better feedback on activities. (graphs, time in HR zone, etc)
2. The AW emphasizes a better quality day. (instead of merely counting steps like Fitbit, you are concerned with time in HR zone as well as movement > the three rings of the AW).

other bits;
Battery on my Charge HR lasted 4-5 days. AW - 1.5.
AW notifications and apps - obvious item but I enjoy text messages, etc on the wrist, stop watch, turn by turn nav, etc

The AW is cool and I do enjoy it more than the Fitbit. However, given a do over, I don't know that I would purchase it again (or Fitbit or any other wearable for that matter). This is all early tech and I'm not feeling this "always connected" direction of things and having yet another screen or thing to charge. From a fitness perspective, they are "OK" and probably benefit some people who need a reminder, but for serious fitness, stick with a HR monitor and an app on your phone. Plus, half the people I know who wear Fitbits don't even exercise.

Fitbit app provides the bolded information and the app gives a lot of stats. Fitbit has it nailed between the app and website. (for fitness tracking only)

 

[VFC]

I have a Fitbit Surge and Moto 360. I am very satisfied with the fitness capability of the Surge. The only negative for me is it looks unprofessional where I work. However, I still wear it (and the Moto 360) at work as I want to track my activities, HR, and sleep pattern 7x24.

Now it appears that the Microsoft Band 2 may be the "one" for me. It has more fitness tracking capabilities than the Surge and looks professional enough for my work environment.

I have pre-ordered it on Amazon and I just got an e-mail yesterday with an Oct 30th guaranteed delivery date. I can't wait. If all goes well I'll just be wearing one fitness/smart watch; the Band 2 7x24.