Apple has released fresh data showing the Apple Watch Series 12 continues to outperform wearable competitors when it comes to heart-rate accuracy—but the margin isn’t always large, especially under certain conditions.
Study Details & Competitors
The comparison involved 1,460 participants wearing a Polar H10 ECG chest strap as a reference. Each person also wore an Apple Watch—either the Series 12 or Ultra 4—and on the opposite wrist a competing device. The rivals included the Garmin Forerunner 970, Google Pixel Watch 4, Huawei Watch 5, Samsung Galaxy Watch 8, WHOOP 5, and Oura Ring 5. Most devices, apart from Apple’s, sampled heart rate more frequently during workouts—for example, the Garmin logged readings every 0.25 to 0.5 seconds. Others like Huawei, Samsung, and WHOOP recorded every 2 seconds, while Google and Oura matched Apple at once every 5 seconds. During daily living, the Samsung dropped to once per minute, and Oura’s readings around every 300 seconds.
Accuracy: Where Apple Wins & Where Rivals Catch Up
Overall, Apple Watch showed a statistically significant higher level of accuracy in both “overall workout” and “overall daily living” categories. In most of the 12 session-type categories tested, it also delivered better session-level average heart rates. In one instance—between Apple and Huawei during workouts—the difference was not statistically significant. In a “daily living” rest condition scenario, the Pixel Watch 4 showed slightly better accuracy, though its lead was less than half a beat per minute.
For activities like cycling and strength training, Apple Watch usually had better accuracy compared to most rivals. However, in eight different tests across such activities, conclusions were listed as indeterminate—meaning the differences weren’t clearly statistically meaningful.
Other Factors: Sampling, Data Export & Methodology
Sampling rate—how often heart rate is measured—varied notably among devices and affected performance. While some rivals surpassed Apple in frequency during workouts, Apple claims its combination of sampling interval and app / algorithmic design still gives it an edge. Export and time-stamp detail also played a role in comparisons: Samsung’s Galaxy Watch 8 reportedly offers minimal time stamps and provides only a single undocumented heart rate value in its data exports; Oura was not tested for strength training because the manufacturer recommends against wearing the ring during weightlifting.
Apple also notes that its tests included a full breakdown of results and detailed methodology. These nuances show why claims of “best accuracy” depend heavily on how and when measurements are taken—not just the number in a spec sheet.
Apple’s latest report builds on a separate early 2026 study, which highlighted Apple Watch’s effectiveness in detecting atrial fibrillation in people without symptoms—reinforcing the brand’s growing reputation in health monitoring.
Analytical Take-Away
This comprehensive study confirms what many suspected: Apple Watch still leads the pack in heart-rate accuracy, though not always by a large margin—and in some specific rest-or low-activity cases, rivals nearly match or slightly exceed it. For consumers, this underlines the importance of looking beyond marketing claims to factors like sampling rate, data export detail, and accuracy during real-world non-workout scenarios. As wearable tech advances, the winners will be those who pair robust hardware with transparent, data-rich software and meaningful insights.
