Is Fitbit more accurate than Amazfit

Amazfit vs Fitbit

You can input your weight data, making it easier to track changes.

BMI (body mass index) is a measurement of body shape determined by the persons height and weight. Being able to track your BMI is useful as you can track your progress in achieving the ideal weight for your height.

You can use it to log the water you drink throughout the day. Drinking enough water is essential to your well-being, with the European Food Safety Authority recommending that women drink about 1.6l per day and men drink 2l per day.

It is compatible with smart scales such as the Fitbit Aria and Withings range. These scales transmit information such as weight and BMI to connected services over Wi-Fi.

Using the app, you can input the food you eat to help you manage your nutrition better.

It will suggest recipes to you, making it easier to eat healthily.

The app supports scanning food barcodes using the camera. It checks a food database and adds the item based on its barcode, allowing you to quickly and easily track your calorie intake.

A food diary allows you to easily keep track of the food you have consumed, an important part of staying healthy and losing weight.

It uses a points-based system instead of just focusing on calories. This can make it much easier to control your nutrition as it is simpler than counting calories, and it also takes other factors into account such as fat and fiber.

I walked 3,300 steps with the Fitbit Charge 6 and Amazfit Bip 5 this one was more accurate

The Fitbit Charge 6 is one of the best Fitbit trackers on the market thanks to its built-in GPS, bright screen and excellent suite of tracking metrics. However, with a price of $159, it isn't exactly a bargain. Enter the lesser-known Amazfit Bip 5: It offers many of the same features and specs as the Charge but for a retail price of around $85.

Aside from price, how do these two fitness trackers stack up? In terms of fitness and health, both the Fitbit Charge 6 and Amazfit Bip 5 monitor heart rate, blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), stress levels and sleep quality. Similarly, each device is GPS-equipped for accurate distance tracking without your phone. The Charge boasts 40-plus tracking modes, while the Bip recognizes 120-plus.

Both devices also offer handy smartwatch-like features, including mobile payment, text and call notifications, music control for a connected device and more.

The Bip is chunkier and feels a tad less premium than the Charge, though it does have a larger (LCD) screen. By contrast, the Charge's smaller AMOLED is much brighter and easier to see in daylight.

These differences aside, when it comes to walks and runs, both trackers provide the basics, like step count, distance, average heart rate, maximum heart rate and pace.

The Bip 5 is coming off a recent loss in our ongoing step count battle of the fitness trackers the Polar Vantage V3 notched the W against it. However, prior to that, the Bip 5 eeked out a win against the Fitbit Inspire 3. Will the Bip 5 upset another Fitbit model? Read on.

Fitbit Charge 6 vs. Amazfit Bip 5 step accuracy test

With the Fitbit Charge 6 on one wrist and the Amazfit Bip 5 on the other, I began my evening walk, manually counting my steps and clicking a tally counter for every 100 taken. For an additional data point, I also ran Strava from my phone in walk-tracking mode.

With no particular destination in mind, I took on the crisp January night with a bounce in my step, a smile on my face the Pacific Northwest rain had finally let up and an embarrassing amount of tech gadgets on my person. Check out the results below.

Swipe to scroll horizontally

Both fitness tracking devices were within 50 steps of the actual step count, which is impressive. However, the Fitbit Charge 6 was off by only two steps, making it the winner. This is also the closest any tracker I've tested has come to nailing the exact total.

Beyond step count, there are some noticeable discrepancies in the distance, calories, heart rate and pace captured. The Fitbit recorded a higher heart rate and more calories burned, but a shorter stretch covered the Bip was more aligned with Strava on distance and pace.

Don't let these discrepancies grind you down. No fitness tracker is perfect the key is to pick one and stick with it. Moreover, it's important to not fixate too much on any one data point when setting or measuring fitness goals the big picture is much more meaningful.

For what it's worth, neither device provided a metric for total elevation gained during my walk, which is frustrating. Living in a hilly city like Seattle, this data point is more than useful. Fortunately, Strava had me covered I climbed 236 feet during my short, brisk saunter.

Conclusion Fitbit Charge 6 wins

This was another super-close head-to-head, but ultimately, the Fitbit Charge 6 proved more accurate at counting steps than the Amazfit Bip 5. Still, both devices are more than precise enough for maintaining or jumpstarting your fitness goals.

More from Tom's Guide

I walked 2,800 steps with the Fitbit Inspire 3 and Amazfit Bip 5 this one was more accurate

There are plenty of solid fitness trackers that won't break the bank, including the Fitbit Inspire 3 and Amazfit Bip 5. The former happens to be my current daily wearer and is also one of the best Fitbits thanks to its fab value proposition.

But how does this fan-favorite Fitbit hold up against the lesser-known Bip 5 in a head-to-head showdown of step count supremacy? Read on.

As a writer who tests fitness trackers for a living, Fitbit is a brand I'm well acquainted with. But Amazfit is relatively new to me. This makes the Bip 5 the first Amazfit wearable I've had the chance to take for a spin.

Saving the in-depth analysis for a forthcoming first impressions review, I'll keep my impressions short and sweet: So far, so good I've been pleasantly surprised by the look, feel and functionality of this lightweight $90 tracker.

By the way, Amazfit has no connection of any kind to the retail and cloud storage giant, Amazon if you thought they did, rest assured, you are not alone.

Fitbit Inspire 3 vs. Amazfit Bip 5 a quick comparison

While the Inspire 3 tends to sit at $99, the Bip 5 generally sells for closer to $89, despite offering a substantially larger display and an onboard GPS. The Bip 5, like the Inspire 3, falls squarely into fitness tracker territory.

But it does have some nice smartwatch-like features not found on this Fitbit model, including the ability to send and receive text and calls via Bluetooth, pay for things, and run a range of useful non-fitness-focused apps.

However, from a fitness tracking and health monitoring standpoint, both devices boast similar capabilities like heart rate, stress, and sleep monitoring, as well as the ability to track a wide range of physical activities. You can also set fitness goals and daily reminders to move. Plus, both devices provide detailed daily wellness reports, as well as plenty of post-workout stats.

Fitbit Inspire 3 vs. Amazfit Bip 5 accuracy test

If I were a betting man, I probably would have put my money on the Inspire 3 winning this one. After all, it recently beat the pricier Fitbit Charge 6 in a similar head-to-head showdown of step count accuracy. That said, thanks to its GPS, I still expected the Bip 5 to perform admirably. Was I right?

To find out, I strapped the Amazfit to my left wrist and the Fitbit to my right. I also recorded the walk via Strava on my phone for an additional data point. However, this "walk" was accidentally (see also: foolishly) tracked as a bike ride, so I only ended up with accurate distance data. This still proved useful, though (see below).

Its also worth noting that neither tracking device was set up to piggyback off my phones GPS signal (only Strava used it).

With all the devices rolling data capture, I began my walk, manually counting every one hundred steps before stopping, clicking my old-school hand tally counter once, and proceeding. Wash and repeat.

Swipe to scroll horizontally

Both devices accurately tracked my walk within 21 steps, which is darn good. But the Amazfit Bip 5 was more precise than the Fitbit Inspire 3, coming within six steps of my actual total.

Distance data also varied between the two devices. The Bip 5, using GPS, placed my walk at 1.44 miles. This is the same distance Strava recorded (also via GPS). The Inspire 3, meanwhile, said I walked 1.28 miles.

There is also a discrepancy in calories burned. The Inspire 3 says 230, while the Bip 5 says 156. Which is more correct? Its hard to know. But these small variations all serve as a gentle reminder that fitness tracking data is rarely 100% flawless. The question is, should you care?

For all but the most hardcore athletes, the answer is no. Most trackers provide accurate enough measurements and metrics to help users gain a better understanding of their well-being, set fitness goals and keep tabs on progress. Simply put, these devices are more about motivation than perfection.

And a little motivation can go a long way: The benefits of any additional physical activity to ones daily routine cannot be understated. Even if your goals are modest, adding a just few thousand steps a day, for example, can help reduce stress, maintain muscle and more.

Conclusion Amazfit Bip 5 wins

Back to our head-to-head showdown. Who won? The laurel, of course, goes to the Amazfit Bip 5. When it comes to tracking steps, both devices performed well but Bip was best.

Does this make it a better buy than the Fitbit Inspire 3? Not necessarily. For now, more field testing is needed to understand exactly how well it stacks up against the current value king factors like battery life, build quality, usability and more will all be considered.

Until then, get those steps in!

More from Tom's Guide

I wore six fitness watches for 6,000 steps. This brand was the most accurate.

Doctors tell us to try and get 10,000 steps a day, but almost no one uses a pedometer to check. Instead, we rely on our fitness smartwatches to tell us when we've hit our goal. But should you trust your watch's step counter accuracy?

I decided to test this for myself. I strapped on six smartwatches at once an Apple Watch Series 6, Galaxy Watch 5 Pro, Garmin Forerunner 265, COROS APEX 2 Pro, Fitbit Sense, and Amazfit T-Rex Ultra and walked laps around my neighborhood while counting every single step in my head (and oh boy, was it tedious).

Once I hit 5,000 steps, I compared the real-world number against what each watch said. Then I ran an additional 1,000 steps, checking to see if it was any more or less accurate if I was moving at a faster pace with longer strides.

So, are smartwatches accurate for step counting? It depends on which brand you own.

Sunday Runday

In his new weekly column, Android Central Fitness Editor Michael Hicks talks about the world of wearables, apps, and overall fitness tech related to running and health.

I specifically subtracted any "steps" taken before the test started. This made the starting conditions equal, but also erased the most common cause of step-counter inaccuracy: watches' accelerometers and/or gyroscopes measuring "steps" from you just moving your arms around as part of daily life.

That aside, here were my smartwatch step counter test results after walking 5,000 steps and running 1,000 steps:

• Amazfit T-Rex Ultra: 5,046 walking, 984 running
• Apple Watch: 4,940 walking, 1,050 running
• COROS APEX 2 Pro: 5,070 walking, 989 running
• Fitbit Sense: 4,714 walking, 994 running
• Garmin Forerunner 265: 5,014 walking, 999 running
• Samsung Galaxy Watch 5 Pro: 5,074 walking, 1,039 running

Ignoring the Fitbit Sense's surprisingly inaccurate walking results for a moment, you can see that most of these watches fall within a 100-step range of the real result or double that for 10,000 steps. So if you go out for a walk and hit 10K, you can generally assume you're not too far off the mark.

The running results only look more accurate at first glance; quintuple the difference, and you can see how, in particular, the Apple Watch Series 6 and Samsung Galaxy Watch 5 Pro struggle to accurately count running strides, compared to walking. Dedicated running watches do better, including Fitbit (despite its early step-counting struggles).

Ranking them for closest accuracy, the Garmin Forerunner 265 is the clear winner, just 15 steps off in total and only 1 off for running tracking. Amazfit's flagship watch (62 steps off) and the COROS APEX 2 Pro (81) take second and third place, both predictably doing well for running data. Apple (110), Samsung (113), and Fitbit (292) take up the final three spots.

[Before anyone gets up in arms, I'm aware the math says Apple was only 10 steps off 6,000 because it was 60 short for walking and 50 long for running, the two inaccuracies canceling each other out. That's not how I chose to measure accuracy, because someone either only walking or only running wouldn't get a super-accurate result.]

As a final point, I also kept an Android phone (the Samsung Galaxy S22+) in my pocket during my walk/run, as a baseline to compare and see if you don't even need a smartwatch for step counting. The results? 5069 and 998. That last result definitely surprised me, as it did far better than Samsung's own top-tier watch. Generally speaking, it's pretty accurate, about on par with Amazfit and COROS; you just don't get all of the other health-tracking benefits that a smartwatch offers.

Analyzing my totally unscientific smartwatch step-counting test

I had no idea how tedious it would be to find a bunch of dead watches sitting in my closet, find all the proprietary charging cables, recharge and update them one by one, sync them to my Android phone or iPhone, and then squeeze three watches onto each wrist. In theory, a watch being slightly higher on my arm could have affected the results a bit, so I did my best to mitigate that and kept them close together.

Then I walked in 93 weather while all of my neighbors gave me very judgy and confused stares (aka "Why the heck is this weirdo wearing six watches? Is he the Clock King?"), trying to keep count in my head while keeping a consistent walking pace.

So, yeah, I thought about doing the test again, possibly with other watches from the same brands, or just to see if the winners and losers were consistent. But no way am I doing it again, sorry friends! You can try the experiment at home yourself to see what results you get, if you want.

I don't own (or couldn't fit) every smartwatch brand; I missed a lot of Wear OS watches like Pixel Watch, TicWatch, and Fossil Gen 6, as well as other running brands like Polar.

Moreover, I don't have the latest versions of certain brands' flagship watches like the Fitbit Sense 2 or Apple Watch Series 8. But to be fair, you almost never hear anything about a watch's accelerometer being X% more accurate than the last generation in marketing materials. It's not clear how many brands are actually improving them from year to year, now that they've hit a certain baseline of accuracy.

The point is, this is hardly a scientific test, and you might have very different results depending on your height, walking stride, cadence, and other factors. Plus, like I said before, everyday false positives for steps are a real problem.

Even though the Garmin Forerunner 265 won the battle for step accuracy, I have noticed my step count climbing when doing nothing but sitting at my desk. Something as simple as stretching or pointing at something can trigger it. And when walking without a natural arm motion, such as when I'm holding a phone in my hand, the lack of back-and-forth movement can befuddle the accelerometer.

The point is, if you do want to walk 10,000 steps a day, or whatever step count your watch's health algorithm recommends, you may want to take false steps into account and walk a couple hundred extra steps, just to be safe. Though in Fitbit's case, you can assume you're already well above 10K once you hit it.

My personal step count average over the last six months is, ironically, 6,000 steps (give or take a hundred steps, I suppose). My goal is to try and keep raising that number by the time I hit 2024, as I strive to improve my VO2 Max and other metrics.

So I'm happy that my daily Garmin watch, the Forerunner 265, is pretty darn accurate on step counting, even if they still have room for improvement. Add to that the fact that it's also among the most accurate when it comes to GPS tracking, and it's no fluke that it sits on the top of our best running watches list.

But for people with standard lifestyle watches like the Apple Watch or Galaxy Watch, 200 steps off the mark after 10,000 total isn't so terrible that you should think seriously about switching brands. It's just something to be aware of!

Why accurate step counting matters

According to a study by the Journal of American Medical Association, walking 10,000 steps a day leads to reduced risk for cardiovascular disease, cancer, or mortality in general for older patients. The NIH found that for high blood pressure patients, three months of daily walking reduces your average systolic score by about 10 points.

Consistent walking can improve cognitive function and memory, according to an Alzheimer's journal study, as well as your mood. Your muscles are strengthened, combatting natural muscle weakness and shakiness from aging. It not only makes contracting Type 2 diabetes less likely but also helps stabilize your blood sugar if you have diabetes.

Plus, of course, there's the obvious benefit that walking about five miles will burn hundreds of calories likely somewhere between 300 and 600, depending on your weight and pace.

All of this helps explain why so many of the best fitness smartwatches incorporate step counting into their watch faces and health snapshots. It's the one metric that gives health benefits across the board, especially for middle-aged-and-older users facing serious ailments.